By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
HintHRO said:

Nope, your interpretation of that logic is flawed.

You don't know what were their expectation. And you are forcing your logic to be a different thing than what it really is.

You do realize you're the only one in this thread not getting how stupid these tests by Capcom are right? If Capcom wants to test if the Switch audience is willing to pay for their AAA games, they better base that on the sales of, for example, Resident Evil 7 and not an overpriced 26y old game while the competition is getting a collection of the same franchise at the same price. How can you expect a $40 SNES game to sell well (again they were lucky)? And if it doesn't sell well it immediately means Switch owners won't buy the newest Street Fighter or Resident Evil or Monster Hunter? That's just plain idiocracy. 

You do know that eveyone agreeing with something doesn't necessarily make that thing right, right?

Are you in any analyst position on new products, market assessment, strategy or the like? The opinion of 1000 laymen on a subject may carry less value than one expert.

So Capcom releasing test games on some genres with very little risk and doing a good data threatment to project capacity for larger products isn't something outrageous. And the fact that they don't say any other game or platform is a test of market, ALL releases are being under constant testing and monitoring.



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."