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

If the quickly growing userbase gives less profit than the stablished ones, yes it is profit-oriented to keep on the stablished.

One would have a hard time proving these companies not launching some games and launching others made it to lose money out of hate for Nintendo.

But it's more profit, nonetheless.

If they were losing money on the platform, then it makes sense. But if the money and profit is there, then that's just a wasted opportunity.

Wouldn't  company rather be making X amount of money across 3 platforms instead of Y amount of money across 2 if X>Y?

There is cost of opportunity.

It would all depends if making the port would bring more ROI and future profits than not doing it. Sometimes it doesn't.

But sure, several of their decisions not to port seems like in the end made they less profit (not that it would be certain the opposite would play out if they made another decision)



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."