IkePoR said:
Here's a quote discussing your very point, about how FromSoftware was pleased with the 2 Million sales "Dark Souls" recieved. "Obviously, Dark Souls didn't cost as much to make. I mean---Resident Evil 6 had a dev team of six-hundred. Tomb Raider had to pay for extravagant hair physics and Hollywood actors. Dark Souls can't be compared to Tomb Raider I'm told, because Dark Souls didn't have to pay Hollywood actors or build a brand new engine---but neither did Tomb Raider. I'm sick and tired of being told that AAA games are being forced as if by invisible gunpoint to invest decadent amounts of money in their games to the point where they need to sell more copies than reality itself is capable of providing. That's not a defense, that's just bad, bad, terribly bad, bad, and terribly bad business." - Jim Sterling I'm sorry you see the truth as "utterly riduculous" and "irritating". |
Even costing less than TR it also wouldn't profit if they sold 500k. Squarenix tough they would sell enough to profit and were pushing boundaries, they misscalculated. But I preffer that than stagnation. Let Souls coexist with GTA and indies the market should keep diversified in genre, costs and sells.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."