Miyamotoo said:
Double of instal base does not mean equal exactly double of sales of some game, but sales would definitely be noticeably better with twice bigger instal base. So I really dont see point of comparing sales of some game where one has twice bigger instal base. |
Define noticeably better (and of course ignore that the other sw launched on a holiday and had 3x the time to sell). And while at that comprove your thesis instead of just throwing assumptions. Halo 3 sold 50% more than Halo 4 and was in less than half of that userbase, sold 3x more than Halo 5 and were in a 1/3 of the userbase... so how noticeably better would it done with the other userbase? Perhaps nothing?
Miyamotoo said:
PS3 and Xbox360 has similar instal base, PS4 has double instal base over XB1. Having double instal base definitely mean much more than having 1.5 year lead in sales for some game. |
No... PS3 at first had 0 HW versus what X360 already had from 1,5 year ww advantage and it took quite some years for the userbase to be similar.
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."