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

Do you have any evidence that 2 better shows would benefit Sony more than 6 good ones?

Having less shows would have less games to show and would need to concentrate only on the few key titles that dominate shows like E3.

So the other guy wasn't even being rude on suggesting that you want Sony to make only 2 just so that they fit your taste or your need to say sony won E3.

like i said it hasn't to do with my personal taste. i was only thinking if sony would concentrate on 2 shows they could rise the output of new game announcements on 2 shows, what would mean more games for show. and i don't think if there are 6 shows in the year the quality and quantity of games would be same if there would only be 2. today making games means long developement time and even sony (with many first party studios and third party) can't always bring up enough new games to make it a great conference, but that was only my opinion. like i mentioned, i too watch every conference with a big pleasure, regardless of what type of game they announce.

Still this doesn't explain how showing 40 very good games on 2 shows would be better for sony in sales than showing 40 very good games and other 60 good and average games on 6 shows.



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."