By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
NYANKS on 05 March 2011
Edit Thread
BenVTrigger said:
NYANKS said:
BenVTrigger said:
Attoyou said:

PS3 owners had a better choice, and looks like a lot took it.

Good for them.



Where did I ever say Bulletstorm was a better game.  This is about business decisions.

 

And I think you're avoiding the wisest decision of them all: release the game when there is not such stiff competition.  I mean, did they really think they would hurt Killzone more than Killzone would hurt them.

If they weren't so dumb they could have released at a less crowded time and had relatively equal sales between the platforms (which is expected as it usually happens). 

They could have had more money, but they threw it away.

There is no way the PS3 version would have ever sold on par with the 360 version, even without KZ3.  First of all the Gears beta was a big draw not to mention Epic has a far larger fanbase on 360 than they do on PS3.

And I don't understand why people are trying to turn this into a "Why did Bulletstorm flop on PS3" thread.  That isn't the question. The question is whether it would have been a better business decision to have had Bulletstorm be a 360 exclusive and in this case I really do think it was the better choice.  And I almost always say 3rd party games should pretty much always be multi-plat but in this case I think Epic and MS would have both seen gains if they had formed a partnership on the game.

It would have sold much closer to 50-50 than this debacle.  I believe it would have been the BEST business decision to release at another time rather than be exclusive.  This game was never going to be huge, you don't see Halo being packaged with a Gears of War beta.  I just don't think being exclusive would have given that many more sales, I think a release date change would have been more effective.  Simple as that.