Chrkeller said:
Demographics. I own a switch and wouldn't touch a third party title for it. For first party titles I don't have a choice but to purchase on weak hardware. But for third party I do have a choice. On PC I get 1440p 60 fps.... I'm not going switch for 720p at 30 fps. More people doesn't equate to more sales. That is a fallacy. Demographics and strategy. Let me ask a few questions. Do you think switch is exceptionally lucrative for third parties and money is being left on the table? If so, why would third party do as such? Do you really think billion dollar publishers don't do their research and have business strategies? |
Even old timers on VGC think attach ratio is somewhat linear, like if your userbase is 20M and you sold 5M of a title if your userbase was 100M would it really sell 25M? Of course not. Usually the smaller the userbase the higher the attach ratio because the people that decided to buy are more core fanbase who buy more games and the bigger the userbase and the titles available more spread out are the sales, and that is even more true for PS and Xbox that have most 3rd parties there.
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."