Lafiel said:
Hello games definitely favored security over possible success here and in their view there was a higher chance to break even (to not die after their first game for fucks sake) on PSN - who are you to criticize them for that decision? |
I do because
1. It's a comparable game (it's not a Trials copy and I never claimed that)
2. similar quality (same Metascore)
3. it sold very well for a PSN game, just like Trials sold very well for an XBLA game
sooo puhlease take your facepalm back or are you saying that Joe Danger has nothing in common with Trials, is worse and failed miserably on PSN ?
Fact of the matter is that great games also have great sales on PSN and XBLA. (at least I don't know a case were a truly great game failed sales wise)
The highest chance to break even is a multiplat release. I'm not criticizing that the developer decided to put it on PSN instead of XBLA, I just criticize the way they're talking about XBLA, because like I said earlier, XBLA is way bigger games wise and even with a third party publisher, they would have made tons of money.
Sean Murray talks about the chances of a self published breakthrough game on XBLA, but he fails to see that his game would definitely count towards the "few" efforts of 200k plus sales.
So what exactly is he bitching about ?
"OMG we could have made some 200k extra sales with a XBLA release, thank god we didn't do that ! Now let's hate the XBLA platform, because other, less capable developers can't make millions of dollars with their mediocre games"
and for the last part... who are you to defend them for that decision ? Ah right, just what I thought....
