Scisca said:
Why? I'm just stating my opinion. I know it's a 3rd party game, I respect its sales, but my point in doing this comparison is to see how well normal, good 3rd party games would sell in the future and the impact that this may have on 3rd party devs. |
Because it's wholly irrelevant, and reeks of moving the goalposts. For the second point, keep in mind I'm not accusing you of either of those, I'm merely pointing out that that is how it appears.
For the first point, you have it backwards; tentpole releases are immensely important to determining what third-parties do. It is no coincidence that GTA clones starting to spring up on the PS2 en masse after GTA III. It's no coincidence that the X-Box gained the reputation of being a "shooter box" since its strength lay in the shooters it attracted. Notice how Call of Duty clones sprung up like mushrooms, on the same platforms that Call of Duty popped up on? How about the fact that the PSP's third-party support only arrived after Monster Hunter showed its face? Or that the DS was not an RPG machine until Final Fantasy III demonstrated its sales potential?
Third-parties are a combination of sheep and moths. They follow the crowd, and swarm towards whatever shiny light they see. Think of it this way: if we apply this line of reasoning equally, then every system loses such franchises as Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, Final Fantasy, Grand Theft Auto, and whatever other "major" third-party franchise you care to name. That will provide us some data, but with so many qualifiers I personally find that data largely useless.
