| Mazty said: While wii U owners may be happy to buy more games in a care-free mindset, the fact is a developer would probably still sell more on the 360 with a more scrutinising market simply due to the sheer volume of 360's out there. Actually this descision is simple economics. To try and claim it's a bad one is just a failing to do the math on your part, sorry. The fact that they aren't alone in this decision should speak volumes. |
That's quite a claim to make of a guy with a PhD in mathematics, I must say.
There's a funny thing about "simple economics" - it's almost always bad economics. Economics is not a simple field, it is a highly complex area in which things are so non-linear, it's almost absurd. Decisions made right now, when the Wii U has a small install base, can make massive differences to the situation if and when the Wii U has an install base in the high double digits of millions.
This is why, for instance, so-called casual games did so well on the Wii - developers of these games put them on the Wii early, and established a strong install base for these games. And so, you now have, for example, Just Dance 4 on the Wii being the top-selling game of the week after 10 weeks on the market, despite the Wii's successor having been released already.
Consider the Rabbids franchise. Ubisoft released a strong version of the game on the Wii at launch. Now, they've had repeated million-sellers in the franchise on the system, while other versions, on other platforms, struggle. Why? Because they established a fanbase on the system from launch.
This is also why you always hear Ubisoft talking about the importance of launching new IPs at the beginning of a console's life - because that is how you create a strong and stable fanbase.
It's not a simple concept, I know. But your reductionist approach to economics has been disproven time and again, in the videogame industry and in other industries.
