By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 14 December 2012
Edit Thread
SnakeDrake said:
Kasz216 said:
SnakeDrake said:

Faulty premise on what? Ubisoft themselves stated that they are happy with the games sales, so shouldn't that mark the game as a success. 

On what i posted above.  It's like you didn't bother reading the last post you replied to.

Though to restate.  They are happy with the sales of their bundled game... successful because it was bundled.


Therefore, unless also bundled, why would this be any indicator or reason for them to bring one of their less popular franchises to the platform?

Because Ubisoft was happy will the games sales which accounts for both the bundled and standalone game. Which makes this game a success for Ubisoft. If Ubisoft was satisfied with the games sales then why shouldn't it be an indicator or reasons for them to bring other franchises to the platform?

becaues it required a bundle...?

I'm not sure how much simpler I can explain this.  You either need to step back and re-read this... or are trying to stealth troll by feigning ignorance.

I'll try one more time though within an exagerrated example... using a different platform and company.  Just in case that helps for you.

 

Say next year the next COD game comes to the Wii U.... and it sells as much as the 360 version... because Nintendo bundled it with Wii U's and also offered any nintendo published game 75% off if you bought it stand alone.

Would it then make sense to Activision to say "Wow what a great success!" and then release another similar big franchise game, but with less name brand appeal, with no similar deal?

Or would it make more sense to say "Good that was a success" and then be more pragmatic because the success was in large part fueled by the special deal made.