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

Forums - Nintendo - Call Of Duty Wii get another adjustment bump. Now up to 870K

Pristine20 on 09 February 2009
Demotruk said:
outlawauron said:
LordTheNightKnight said:

"You must be kidding. There is no absolute number for budgets or $ recieved from retailers."

The game would have to cost tens of millions to not have made a profit. Even the ads are not numerous enough to have exceeded that.

I don't think it has lost Activision money, but it's ludricrious to think that the Wii version has made more profit than the PS3 version.

@ averyblund

Not necessarily. Red Steel cost more than Gears of War to make.

 

 

Of course it didn't, but you're missing what's important: profit/investment. The investment in CoD on Wii was much lower than that on the HD consoles. So, it may have a similar ratio of profit to investment.

 

Take off the fanboy goggles for a second. Over 7 mil HD sales made similar profit to 0.87 mil wii sales only in a fanboy's dream.



"Dr. Tenma, according to you, lives are equal. That's why I live today. But you must have realised it by now...the only thing people are equal in is death"---Johann Liebert (MONSTER)

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives"---Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler

Around the Network
outlawauron on 09 February 2009
Demotruk said:
outlawauron said:
LordTheNightKnight said:

"You must be kidding. There is no absolute number for budgets or $ recieved from retailers."

The game would have to cost tens of millions to not have made a profit. Even the ads are not numerous enough to have exceeded that.

I don't think it has lost Activision money, but it's ludricrious to think that the Wii version has made more profit than the PS3 version.

@ averyblund

Not necessarily. Red Steel cost more than Gears of War to make.

Of course it didn't, but you're missing what's important: profit/investment. The investment in CoD on Wii was much lower than that on the HD consoles. So, it may have a similar ratio of profit to investment.

That's like saying that attach rates actually matter more than game sales!

I'd much rather get 20 million profit off of a 10 million invesment than get 10 million off of a 5 million investment. This will probably be my last post in my thread as I feel I'm saying the same thing over and over again.



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

Demotruk on 09 February 2009

Many times the profits, many times the costs. Yeah, the HD versions probably still had a higher ratio of profits to investment, but they'd be on a similar level. And it's easily enough to continue bringing the franchise to the Wii.



A game I'm developing with some friends:

www.xnagg.com/zombieasteroids/publish.htm

It is largely a technical exercise but feedback is appreciated.

Demotruk on 09 February 2009
outlawauron said:
Demotruk said:
outlawauron said:
LordTheNightKnight said:

"You must be kidding. There is no absolute number for budgets or $ recieved from retailers."

The game would have to cost tens of millions to not have made a profit. Even the ads are not numerous enough to have exceeded that.

I don't think it has lost Activision money, but it's ludricrious to think that the Wii version has made more profit than the PS3 version.

@ averyblund

Not necessarily. Red Steel cost more than Gears of War to make.

Of course it didn't, but you're missing what's important: profit/investment. The investment in CoD on Wii was much lower than that on the HD consoles. So, it may have a similar ratio of profit to investment.

That's like saying that attach rates actually matter more than game sales!

I'd much rather get 20 million profit off of a 10 million invesment than get 10 million off of a 5 million investment. This will probably be my last post in my thread as I feel I'm saying the same thing over and over again.

 

Er, what does it have to do with attach rates? It's simple money, business. If you have 10 million dollars, you can invest in the 5 mill project and something else if you wish, but that's irrelevant anyway, all that matters is that they're making enough money to continue. To use your example, Activision have got the extra 5 million, so why not invest in both projects? They both make money (and doing so reduces costs by sharing some assets accross the various versions).



A game I'm developing with some friends:

www.xnagg.com/zombieasteroids/publish.htm

It is largely a technical exercise but feedback is appreciated.

outlawauron on 09 February 2009
Demotruk said:
outlawauron said:
Demotruk said:
outlawauron said:
LordTheNightKnight said:

"You must be kidding. There is no absolute number for budgets or $ recieved from retailers."

The game would have to cost tens of millions to not have made a profit. Even the ads are not numerous enough to have exceeded that.

I don't think it has lost Activision money, but it's ludricrious to think that the Wii version has made more profit than the PS3 version.

@ averyblund

Not necessarily. Red Steel cost more than Gears of War to make.

Of course it didn't, but you're missing what's important: profit/investment. The investment in CoD on Wii was much lower than that on the HD consoles. So, it may have a similar ratio of profit to investment.

That's like saying that attach rates actually matter more than game sales!

I'd much rather get 20 million profit off of a 10 million invesment than get 10 million off of a 5 million investment. This will probably be my last post in my thread as I feel I'm saying the same thing over and over again.

Er, what does it have to do with attach rates? It's simple money, business. If you have 10 million dollars, you can invest in the 5 mill project and something else if you wish, but that's irrelevant anyway, all that matters is that they're making enough money to continue. To use your example, Activision have got the extra 5 million, so why not invest in both projects? They both make money (and doing so reduces costs by sharing some assets accross the various versions).

You said that they have a similar ratio of profit and investment. I said who really cares if you get a lot more money off of your bigger investment (HD versions of CoD) than your smaller investment (Wii version).



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

Around the Network
LordTheNightKnight on 09 February 2009
outlawauron said:
LordTheNightKnight said:

"You must be kidding. There is no absolute number for budgets or $ recieved from retailers."

The game would have to cost tens of millions to not have made a profit. Even the ads are not numerous enough to have exceeded that.

I don't think it has lost Activision money, but it's ludricrious to think that the Wii version has made more profit than the PS3 version.

@ averyblund

Not necessarily. Red Steel cost more than Gears of War to make.

 

Whoever is claiming that is just wrong.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Demotruk on 09 February 2009

But that was my point, nobody did claim that. If you read puffy's post, he said it proves that they made a profit, not that they made more profit than on the HD consoles. And I was saying that it doesn't matter that they made less profit, but that the profit they did make was worth their investment.



A game I'm developing with some friends:

www.xnagg.com/zombieasteroids/publish.htm

It is largely a technical exercise but feedback is appreciated.

averyblund on 09 February 2009

 

Take off the fanboy goggles for a second. Over 7 mil HD sales made similar profit to 0.87 mil wii sales only in a fanboy's dream.

 

What is this magical HD console you speak of that can play both PS3 and 360 games? Or do they ship both on the same disc now? Compile off the same exact same code? Oh wait, I'm so silly MS and Sony merged....how silly of me! I seriously want of of these XStations, they sound sweet.

 

Seriously though, nobody in the right mind thinks that this will out profit either HD version, simply that it was easily worth Activision's time and expense to create. I do think it is too early to say if it will be 50% or 70% of the PS3 version, which in turn is a fraction of the 360 version. Only time will tell, though the Wii weekly holding up pretty well as are the other versions. 



XBL: WiiVault Wii: PM me  PSN: WiiVault

PC: AMD Athlon II Quadcore 635 (OC to 4.0ghz) , ATI Radeon 5770 1GB (x2)

MacBook Pro C2D 2.8ghz, 9600m GT 512 iMac: C2D 2.0, X2600XT 256

 

Red4ADevil on 09 February 2009

Man thoes TV ads really did the trick.



ph4nt on 09 February 2009

Disclaimer: these numbers are made up.

Say it costs you $100 to make a product and you can make $500 from it.

Say you can make another $50 product using the same resources and get $200 back.

Would you: A) Refuse to invest the extra $50
B) Make the second product as well.

I think if anyone chooses anything other than B their genes should be removed from the population. Profit is profit, it would be stupid for activision to want LESS profit.