pezus said:
Mazty said:
Barozi said:
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. |
nah I think he just said that the 46m Halo games that were sold (over 30m this gen alone) and their hundreds of millions dollar MSmade in revenue from that doesn't matter.
|
I think your site needs updating then as it puts ODST at 6 million, Halo 3 at 11 million and Reach at 9 million...
If we consider that MW2 sold, as of March 2010, over 10 million units in the US alone, well that makes Halo sales look pretty piss-poor. My point isn't that "OMG HALO SUX!" or some other nonsense, it's that this generation has shown that exclusives do not have the best sales by a very large margin.
pezus 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?
|
...
MS owns the Halo franchise
|
And they work on money, just like every other company in the world. Therefore if they can get more money by releasing their game on more then one console, why would they not do that?
|
Because they want people to buy their system obviously. Why is this so hard to understand?
|
And yet when ME3 and CoD's are released, we still see a spike in console sales, which indicates that exclusives are not needed to sell a console.
