I could see why Platinum games would want to focus on the HD consoles.. There would be far more HD fanboys willing to shell out $60 for an 8 hour campaign mode in Madworld.

:P

I'm just sayin' that the truth will be impossible to uncover if every side pleads ignorance to any possibility but their own.

So were comparing Madworld and Bayonetta...... Two entirely different games.


Oh, and comparing sales data for a week in a single region VS LTD WW sales is not very subjective.

I thought Bayonetta with 480K on X360 and 530K on PS3 was a pure flop.

I remember to see that a game needs to sell more than 1 Million to break even on any of the HD consoles.

I don't think Mad World would have even sold on the 360 and PS3 when trying to compete with all these other franchises. I'm surprised Bayonetta sold this much already.

It's not a mismatch, just a bad game.

4-5 hours max and very limited replay value, the visual style is very confusing at first look, nice for a while, then just boring. The gameplay and controls are solid enough, but after 2 hours of mixing things up a bit you are essentially doing the same thing over and over again, though at least that repetition only lasts another couple of hours.

I doubt that, because that would mean it cost 20 million to make the game.

http://www.forbes.com/2006/12/19/ps3-xbox360-costs-tech-cx_rr_game06_1219expensivegames.html

"

For the companies that do put next-generation titles out early, making a profit is tough. Namco Bandai president Takeo Takasu said his company needs to sell at least 500,000 copies of each PlayStation 3 game it creates to make a profit. Analysts predict that some other publishers will need to clear 1 million units to get in the black--and start making about $1 per game sold.

The remaining $59 per game goes into many hands. The biggest portion--nearly 45%--goes toward simply programming and designing the game itself. Then the console maker, retailer and marketers each get a cut. Add in manufacturing and management costs, and depending on the type of game, a license fee. Some gamemakers also have to pay a distributor to help get their titles in stores."

As you can see, 1$ per game is put into "profit". Another 45% pays for the dev costs.

So, for a 50$ game, about 20$ per title is going into dev costs.
At 500k in sales, the devs have paid off 10M$ worth of costs whereby the overflow goes into profit, and they have made 500k$ in straight profit. To illustrate, if the game costs 8M to make and they sold 500k copies at 50$ per, they just made 2.5M in profit. (10M dev's cut, minus 8M dev cost, plus 1$ per copy sold.)

However, for all intents and purposes, the average HD game is 60$ at launch, where the bulk of the sales are, so they are actually making .45X60$= ~27$. At 500k sold, that's 13.5M for dev costs. Only the highly produced games like Call of duty and metal gear solid or Halo/Gears of War actually require 20M$+ to make. Most regular games cost between 2M and 20M to make.

wouldnt suprise me to hear about a madworld hd version at e3.

Maybe they should have made Madworld into a dancing game it would have sold more. It worked for Ubisoft.

the funniest thing about these articles is how they always point to the Wii's first week or first month, and then always point to the total for the game they are comparing it too. Like, "X game has sold 6mil worldwide so far while B game on Wii only sold 15 thousand on its first day. A complete disaster!!!"

Madoworld on Wii sold more in its total  then the 360 version has of Bayonetta. For a game of that calibur with that marketing push behind it, 1.1mil is kinda lame Honetly