only777 said:
I'm not having a go at you here, but I think this statament is how Microsoft see it and this is why Microsoft are losing so much at this point. Sony (and increasingly Nintendo these days) are all for building the libary of games for the machine. They seem to be willing to have a game on the system so long as it will at least break even. This way adds niche games to the overal libary, and having lots of these niche games helps to create the image that there are games avaiable for all types of gamers. Microsofts approach to sticking to larger, higher profit titles; limits the amount of different games on the machine, and in turn drives customers to rival machines who offer a spectrum of titles from AAA to indie budget games. If one machine offers all the Multiplat AAA games (and a few exclusives) and another offers all the same AAA games plus many smaller word of mouth games; then the choice is a no brainer. |
Considering Shu saying that basically only 4 in 10 games they release break even (and 2 pay for all the rest), I would say Sony releases even games that "could break even" or "not totally flop" if it brings good PR to the company. Sure it will be small scale and all, but they take even more risk than Nintendo.
Unless we think Nintendo didn't though they would hit good sales on Splatton and made it a risk as Book of spells

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."







