Barozi said:
Mazty said:
Barozi said:
Mazty said:
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.
|
http://www.vgchartz.com/gamedb/?name=halo&publisher=&platform=X360&genre=&minSales=0&results=200
Over 30m now. Likely 40m at the end of the gen.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2010/02/anatomy-of-a-60-dollar-video-game.html
You don't have to be a genius to see that Halo makes MS more money than COD.
What would be the point if every game was on every platform ? Answer: there wouldn't be any consoles. But Microsoft and especially Nintendo don't want that since their consoles are printing money for them.
|
But it depends on figures. 1:1 yes, Halo makes more, but if CoD sells significantly more then Halo, which it has, MS may make more money from CoD.
As I said to another user, a console doesn't just have game to sell, but technology. The Wii sold on it's controls, and the PS3 helped Sony enshrine the next optical media format.
|
lol but twice as much sales are still not enough for CoD. Even with development costs and marketing included for Halo. Do the math.
|
Depends how much Halo sells though. Considering the weaker sales of the later titles, it's not so far fetched to see royalties of one title return a greater profit then an exclusive.
As far as calling the 360 a success because of Halo, that seems rather ludicrous. Every console has exclusives, and until someone can show how many Xbox's Halo directly help sell, it's a redudant point.
