drboot said:
Viper1 said:
drboot said:
Quite funny that you bring up WaW as some kind of example of a success story, when the the HD versions sold many multiple times as much as the Wii version on an identical install base. I wouldn't consider that very good...
|
*sigh*
CoD:WaW launched to just 62k units. It's at 880k now and still selling very well. The fact the HD versions have sold more is irrelevant. The point was to show that poor launch numbers don't mean anything on Wii.
|
It's not irrelevant. If a developer sees that one console with by far the largest userbase is only contributing a very small fraction of the sales, why should they even bother to create new IP's or even sequels for the system? Just because Wii sales are rising, don't make them good by any stretch of the immagination when talking about a huge franchise like CoD that has no issues selling 10 million plus on HD systems. Just because you got a 10 dollar pay raise on your 200 weekly salary doesn't make you affluent by anybody's standards. When you start at nothing, everything looks like a lot. In reality, CoD WAW Wii sales are still horrible next to the HD versions.
|
So because it has a small fraction of sales that inherently means it's unprofitable? Even if development costs are a tiny fraction of the other SKUs? You do realize that 800k+ sales is 800k+ more than zero sales (on its way to well over a million), which is what would have happened had you been running the show (shortly before being fired for incompetence).
And your other argument is entirely foolish and ill-thought (and has nothing to do with the matter at hand): are you saying that if someone is making $200 a week that a 5% increse is something to laugh off? You do realize that most people don't see 5% pay increases year-on-year, yes? Do you even have the barest grasp of basic economics?
Finally, your (insipid) argument basically boils down to: "I don't like the Wii so I think Activision (and everyone else) shouldn't bother developing games for it, regardless of how much money they stand to make." Sound illogical? That's because it is and it is precisely what you are saying.
Now feel free to come back and try to explain away all the fallacies and idiocy you've already spewed--it'll be fun when, rather than simply admitting you don't have a leg to stand on, you dig a deeper hole in a vein attempt to 'prove' your point.
Note: I apologize to individuals like Viper1 who are paying you the courtesy of being a thinking human being but I am simply tired of the distortions, contortions and 'if I believe it it must be true' stupidity that seems to pass for reasonable argument by individuals such as yourself. If you want to troll, go right ahead but at least make a feeble attempt at passing off some sort of marginally well-constructed strawman rather than this insipid, half-baked, 'analysis' that would get you laughed out of any Econ 101 course on the face of the earth.