MontanaHatchet said:
Highest profiting companies include: Nintendo, who solely develop on the Wii and DS. Ubisoft, the majority of whose development is on the Wii and DS. Activision, which gives large support to the Wii and DS, but mainly has several cash cows. If you make a game with an HD budget and it sells just like Call of Duty or Halo, then you're doing great. If it ends up selling like Lord of the Rings: Conquest, Golden Axe, or a bajillion other HD flops, then you're not so lucky. Cheaper development on the Wii and DS is a safety net in case you mess up and your game isn't so successful. No company has ever lost half a billion dollars developing games before this generation. |
@montana, i understand where you are trying to go with this, but do you really think the message to devs here is that they should be more like nintendo, ubisoft, and activision?
Because frankly, that's easier said than done.
On top of that, once you finally get to a point where your products can actually compete with one of those companies, how much room is actually there for anyone else, or even yourself? These are massive massive companies whose sole purpose is to squeeze every last drop of flavor out. On top of that those 3 all have big name games, and giant franchises. What's the message to another dev? Get a huge franchise?
This argument that "instead of developing on HD you should develop on wii" is ridiculous, because there is just as much potential to fail. It's just in smaller amounts. It's like playing at a 10$ minimum table compared to a 250$ minimum table, either way it's a gamble. You'll just have the chance to play a little bit longer on the 10$ table.
