Barozi said:
Mazty said:
VicViper said:
Mazty, are you pro-sony or pro-nintendo?
I bet Sony! :D |
PC gamer, so I don't have any bias. I approach this from the view of an investor and an academic, not a fan.
BenVTrigger said:
@ Mazty
did you honestly just try to say Halo isn't profitable and worth continuing development on.
My god.................................we've hit a new level here folks. |
Why are you answering my questions with questions...?
And that is a lovely strawman you made. I said multiplatform titles like CoD are more successful then Halo, so will publishers want to keep exclusives exclusive? Would it be possible to put aside your bias and approach this from the view of an investor?
|
but COD is freakin multiplatform and MS and Sony only get platform royalties, but in case of Halo, a multimillion selling franchise that is owned by MS, they get MUCH more money than with any CoD release.
So in terms of profit, Halo is more important than COD for MS. (ignoring the reason that it's a system seller for now)
|
That's not the whole story though. Unlike other games, MS will have to encure all the overheads for the development of Halo games, unlike CoD. So whereas other games may just make them royalties, there is no expense for MS.
Plus, you have just shown why MS should make Halo multiplatform; they may make more revenue that way, and that's in their best interest. However this is all some bizarre digression. My point initially was that the 360 hasn't been some AAA success that someone was claiming it was, nothing more, nothing less.
