| KungKras said: But that is also, fundementally about profit. It's a no brainer that selling games at a higher price gives more profit, and simultaniously more revenue, if all other factors such as publishing and manufacturing and development remains constant. (Or are we talking strictly about revenue with the development out of the picture?) but when looking at a market's health at a macro scale, as I said, profits are of the most interrest, because that's where the sucess of the business lies. When looking at the biggest picture, and taking development costs into account, you have high development costs and high margins on the HD consoles, so it may balance out, it may not. My point is, with things looking that way, when looking at revenue of course the HD console graphs would be much higher, because more cash flows through those markets, but it would be misleading when gauging how sucessful the markets are. That's why I think "Those graphs would look different if Nintnedo dared to show revenue" is a misleading statement. Of course the graphs would be higher, but they would not have much information. Revenue could come only from companies expenses and not from sales. A chart with revenue/Profits chart/(Profits - revenue) graphs for each software market would be interresting though, since it would measure both how much customers spend in each market plus how sucessful the software businesses are. |
It isn't a misleading statement to say that revenue per title is important. Revenue comes from the price of sale * number of units sold. If third parties don't have as much revenue on the Wii then it shows where the most profit potential for third parties lies and thus where they would focus the majority of their development efforts. As we don't get per platform breakdowns for profit it can only be assumed that the third parties would attempt to maximise their own profits on the most profitable platforms which follows that they focus the majority of their development resources on the HD consoles.
Tease.
