My statements were not an attack; they were observations of your criticisms of Malstrom mirroring your own behavior. That you took them as an attack is rather peculiar, and I'm not sure what (if anything) I should interpret from it.

Also, I think you've misunderstood what that 80/20 split actually means. Just because one company takes 80% of the overall industry profits does not mean that the other 20% of profits are insufficient to make up for the expenses of the competing products. In such an environment, basic logic would indicate that businesses would either collapse rapidly from overbearing expenses, or would intentionally leave the industry due to unprofitability.

@ Soriku.

I said why I don't agree with him. I don't feel the need to argue against him since all everyone is gonna do is tell me I'm wrong.

I also am not going to counter-argue since he makes like a billion points, I don't have all day for that.

His articles, for the most part, are disjointed, and not well written, and he acts like an elitist prick, as I said in my post. Why continually beat the horse that we didn't bet on the Wii? We all have been knowing that the Wii would win since last year, why bring it up again that we were wrong? That's something that elitist pricks do.

Now please kindly apologize for saying "... you look stupid".

The mirror analogy has yet to fall short, I notice...

That, incidentally, is the mark of an excellent author: when they can find such a common thread with their readers that the readers see themselves in the author. Though it can be a bit of a rude awakening when you realize this is true about an author whom you only see faults in...

@ Rol/Sky

I don't get it @_@

Hell yes.

That means I'm a psychic genius.

This was my favorite Malstrom in a while.  The Dorothy one took me by surprise.  "Quoting these 3 men all the time is the path to the gold" gave me some good lulz.

Oh I get it!

And I am an elitist prick, I know it!

So I can spot one from a mile away.

If I said that 20% of games make 80% of the overall revenue, is that easier as we don't have individual profit reports on every game?

There are 443 games on the Xbox 360 which have sold a total of 140,000,000 copies or 316,000 per game.

There are 42 games which have sold over a million copies out of 95 million copies sold or an average of 2.25 million copies sold per game. They are the top 9.5% of Xbox 360 games.

Therefore 401 games sold an average of 137,000 copes per game. 8.2 million revenue per game on average.

Average revenue of the top 9.5% of games? 135 million at retail. 9.5% of games made 68% of the total revenue. Therefore my statement is true.

This is quick and dirty but I feel that I have proved my 80/20 rule.

No, I didn't say that others are being "proved wrong", I said I didn't feel like arguing and counter-arguing.

And I never said I wasn't a prick, but I'm not writing articles telling people what to believe, and rubbing it in peoples faces that they were wrong two years ago.  Sorry, I don't hold onto the past like that.

So again, do you kindly mind apologizing for saying I "...look stupid"?

Im really sorry...

Your statement, Squilliam, takes nothing into account for budgets of games. Under your assumption, "profit" has a constant target value for all games, which just isn't true. Some games (such as GTA4) have enormous budgets, but most games are made for sub-$20mil. Unless you wish to analyze each individual game's budget to show precisely how much each individual game has made or lost for a developer to prove your point, I don't really see how you can maintain the argument. And odds are, you would prove mine instead; it's bad business to stay in an industry where you only take losses, and only a very poorly run company keeps at a losing prospect when they cannot make a profit.