By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Words Of Wisdom said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
"You're deliberately missing the point. In order to stay profitable, you have to make a certain level of sales and these companies are obviously making them."

No, because, as I stated, the point was not profit for the companies, but gamers being turned off of the Wii by those games. The games would have to be platinum, or at least gold, sellers for that to happen. PS2 owners were not turned off of that system by its crap games. They just learned to be careful about what they bought (that is if they were actually playing the games they bought). Why do you assume these new people won't learn to do the same?

Why do you assume that each individual shovelware game needs to sell in large numbers to have an effect?


Because the combined sales of the worst games (aside from licensed games, which sell on any system) would barely be a tenth of the Wii's userbase. What you are assuming is a chain of people buying horrid game after horrid game. So you would have to split the combined sales up, in order to account for people buying multiple horrid games.

Let's assume a large amount buys a series of bad games, while somehow not buying any game off the shelves that they would actually like, and then gives up gaming. What would we lose? About 100k gamers? 200k? That would suck, but enough to tank the Wii? 



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs