By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
jlrx said:
You are looking at simple numbers, instead you need to be looking at the health of these companies. EA for example has had shrinking profits quarter after quarter. It costs more for them to make the games, they get less returns on their investment.

Further, 400 dollars is not entering mass market appeal. How quick do you think the system will see $250 dollars? They are already bleeding money as is, do you think they can sustain even more loss?

Im not sure if it's against the rules to mention other sites, but check out here
http://forum.pcvsconsole.com/viewthread.php?tid=11760

There is a good example of the profits of Sony/MS/Nintendo. What is most disturbing for Sony is that their games department loss so much money it shrunk their profits overall considerably. EA also suffered losses.

Many companies are seeing declining profits, or suffering losses, they bet on the wrong systems, invested their assets incorrectly and are paying for it.

Keeping those things in mind, you have to realise that what is a multiplatform PS3/360 game can very likely become a multiplatform PS3/360/Wii game. It's all about money, no matter how many millions of this or that they sell.

 Video Game industry productions are highly based on investment companies or previous profits - if a company fails to produce good profits on their 'latest' game then their cash flow for their next  game is considerably lower, and offers less money to pay people to work on it.

I also don't find that thread very helpful, as it shows overall statistics, but not gaming-specific. 



Numbers: Checker Players > Halo Players

Checkers Age and replayability > Halo Age and replayability

Therefore, Checkers > Halo

So, Checkers is a better game than Halo.