Mr Khan said:
mrstickball said:
dahuman said:
Sal.Paradise said:
He addressed this exact point. The porting costs may not be justified on the Wii U because there is less dlc/digital sales potential than on other consoles. Putting resources into DLC may well be far more viable than porting the game to another system, not to mention lower-risk.
|
That would be basing on the assumption that all 3rd party publishers thinking that the Wii U will 100% fail to sell any of their games on that particular hardware, it's like predicting the color of shit that a dog is gonna poop out in 1 year from across the globe. It's an argument that's not even fetched into reality.
|
Its an argument that virtually every analyst has made already. Regardless if you like it or not, every major publisher pays analysts six-figure incomes to predict and project ROIs for titles in order to greenlight them. That goes for every platform, every title. As a consumer, you may not like this, but its a reality inside the industry, because a failed title can cost a publisher tens of millions of dollars in losses.
The analysts have no choice but to factor in likely sales figures for the Wii U before it comes out. They're going to base that on citations by other analysts, and whatever types of metrics they can find in order to base their assumptions on.
Not every analyst will assume the WiiU will "Fail". Failure is even a subjective term, as some publishers are likely to greenlight titles for the platform if there are any scenarios in which they can make money on the WiiU. There are many scenarios where it may be profitable. However, if you looked at the entirety of analyst opinions on the WiiU, its negative, which means its likely to have unfavorable projections when compared to the next Xbox or Playstation.
|
Like people who invest in game companies, analysts in this industry seem to know jack shit, or be talking out the sides of their mouths in order to influence the industry rather than provide actual analysis.
|
Like anything else in life, there's a big gap between analysts like Pachter, who work for guys like Wedbush Morgan, who are there to advise investment firms on who to put money into, and nameless, faceless guys at EA, Activision, Bethesda and the like that actually influence and effect the decisions of the higher ups.
Most people only see one side of the coin - the guys that make buffonish statements. Pachter does it simply as a fanservice to gamnig enthusiasts. He makes his real cash on other things, which he's a lot better at. To get into the real heavy and deep analysis, you're going to talk to people you've never heard of with titles you never knew existed.
@Khuutra - That is true, but they are heavily correlated. Problems in one area can cascade into others. It doesn't entirely imply a direct causitive relationship, but they do influence them. Since they influence them, it may become problematic for Nintendo. It may not be in 2012. It may not even be in 2013. But if Nintendo doesn't play this generation very intelligently, they may see a huge dropoff in hardware sales when compared to the beast that was the Wii.
