Overall performance of Platinum Games

[MaxwellGT2000]

Barozi said:

MaxwellGT2000 said:

Dear lord it's like a brick wall that has wrong painted all over it and doesn't know when to topple over.

Look patches are done by the developer period, now you're back peddling with SEGA/Sony, do I care? No it's just wrong from the get go.

Now instead of debating about Madworld you're saying the concepts don't match the market, being the first time you've actually had a decent argument on the title, but you essentially went from calling it a PSN title that could have been up for download to saying it was the wrong type of game, that's debatable for both sides especially when you see super stylized titles of that genre being really only offered on the little white box, Bayonetta being the closest thing I can think of on the PS3 and 360 to be honest.

And you're purposely twisting what I said to fit your argument, you're not going to get anywhere with me doing that, I said last gen development costs are in line with Wii not HD consoles, I brought up the facts EA brought to the table, the facts THQ and IGN has given as well, 200k to 250k for the average Wii title and 1m to 1.1m for the average PS3/360 title.  

So again given the real facts not twisted around, you're not neutral at all, only trying to fit things within your own argument, which is fine, but you're trying the same fallacy again, attacking my credibility by saying I have some sort of bias towards the company, which I have yet to mutter one word of "Platinum Games is great!" or even try to attribute ANY of my argument towards the quality of their work, no I just bring in numbers, facts, and figures for the average development costs, what breaks even, and how their titles are holding up against those standards and you have your arbitrary definition of success that essentially lets you set goal posts as you please...

I can literally do this all day since well my argument hasn't changed one bit unlike yours, my facts are backed up by searching for the articles, hell I could get you that podcast from IGN.  Yep, totally some biased fan of theirs, which is apparently all you can say to try to devalue my statements.

Where exactly can I find these statements ? I mean I believe EA's statement, because they're just bad with money, but EA is always trying to make AAA products, thus more budget and more marketing and that isn't the case with every developer.

http://uk.gamespy.com/articles/108/1082176p1.html
http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/features/cost-of-development-greatly-favors-wii-say-publishers/69714/?biz=1

I think you're a bit too high on HD games on a bit too low on Wii games.

More like:

550k - 1.1m for HD games

225k - 350k for Wii games

(everything fullprice of course)

You can find the THQ bit in the IGN podcast, its from early/mid 2009, it was when De Blob hit 500k sales and THQ told them they were going to start looking into a sequel when Matt C stated how much like PS2 development you break even in that 200k range and then when you hit 500k you start discussing sequel/making a series out of it.

I really don't know about your EA statements, I mean they aren't really bad with money, they didn't reach biggest 3rd party publisher status last gen for nothing, just this gen if you look back most of their HD titles have failed to hit a million across both platforms, they gave the figure it takes 1.1m copies sold to break even on the "average" HD title.

So you know the 2D shumps like Raiden that come out on the 360 aren't going to need 1.1m copies of course, but personally when I think of average middle of the line projects I do think EA and if they're saying the average is 1.1m I'm gonna believe them, as for the other bit EA released a statement how Wii games took 1/4th that of HD consoles to break even (even then EA has failed to make many projects on the Wii turn a profit )