It has more to do with the demographics of the Wii audience.
Boom Blox is the best Wii game and was disappointing at the cash register.
There is nothing Nintendo, or anyone else can do. Shovelware sells. It has done. It will do. The situation will not, can not, change in the next 3-4 years.
Sales of Boom Blox were good enough to merit a sequel.
Sequels are green-light because they leverage existing asset and engine investments.
A great development team with the right time and resources will create and design to bring the most out of whatever system is around. Shadow of the colossus on the PS2 had some technical achievements that most next gen games still haven't done. Capcom have been successful in creating and offloading effective ports of high quality titles to tech impossible systems, Street fighter Alpha 3 for the GBA for example.
I agree that a great team can get the most out of whatever platform they are working on, but honestly, there are few teams in the industry that are "great". Like it or a not, most companies have teams that aren't AAA-talent, and I do think it's unfair to expect anything otherwise. So, a little help and direction for your average Dev team is likely to be much appreciated.
Also, this is a bit of a nitpick, but as much as I love Shadow of the Colossus, I disagree that it has "technical achievements that most next gen games still haven't done". Come on now, really? I definitely agree that it sets the bar for mood, environment, immersiveness, and narrative that few games have reached. But in terms of technical merits, it's old news. I don't mean for that to diminish the game at all. In fact, the opposite. Despite the fact that it's no longer the technical powerhouse it once was, it's still a bloody fantastic game.
It has more to do with the demographics of the Wii audience.
Boom Blox is the best Wii game and was disappointing at the cash register.
There is nothing Nintendo, or anyone else can do. Shovelware sells. It has done. It will do. The situation will not, can not, change in the next 3-4 years.
Sales of Boom Blox were good enough to merit a sequel.
Sequels are green-light because they leverage existing asset and engine investments.
Yes, surely that's the only reason.
Haven't EA come out several times and said that they were happy with the sales of Boom Blox?
Also, this is a bit of a nitpick, but as much as I love Shadow of the Colossus, I disagree that it has "technical achievements that most next gen games still haven't done". Come on now, really? I definitely agree that it sets the bar for mood, environment, immersiveness, and narrative that few games have reached. But in terms of technical merits, it's old news. I don't mean for that to diminish the game at all. In fact, the opposite. Despite the fact that it's no longer the technical powerhouse it once was, it's still a bloody fantastic game.
I assumed he meant in terms of completely exploiting a piece of hardware for all it's worth, and then some. All the stuff that plain shouldn't have been possible on the PS2 - HDR, the motion blur - really pulled the hardware through the ringer, as the frame rate shows.
Because otherwise, yeah, the game is by no means unsurpassed in modern games.
edit - anyone have the link to that site with all detailing the techno-wizardry in SotC?
List of Nintendo published games that could be considered hardcore (I'm just going to use the definition of it not being casual":
* 2006
o The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess
* 2007
o Eyeshield 21: Field Saikyō no Senshi (Japan only)
o Super Paper Mario
o Mario Strikers Charged
o Metroid Prime 3: Corruption
o Battalion Wars 2
o Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn
o Super Mario Galaxy
* 2008
o Endless Ocean
o Super Smash Bros. Brawl
o Mario Super Sluggers
o Wario Land: Shake It!
o Fatal Frame IV (Japan only)
o Captain Rainbow (Japan only)
o Disaster: Day of Crisis (Japan/PAL Region only)
Honestly, I can't tell if you're defending or arguing against his point. Endless Ocean is the epitome of casual, as is Sluggers. Wario Land?
Wario Land is a 2d game that uses hand drawn graphics on a console. It was also developed by a very small developer and mostly appealed to hardcore gamers with casual gamers probably never hearing about it. It is more hardcore than Gears of War and a ton of other games considered hardcore.
Also, this is a bit of a nitpick, but as much as I love Shadow of the Colossus, I disagree that it has "technical achievements that most next gen games still haven't done". Come on now, really? I definitely agree that it sets the bar for mood, environment, immersiveness, and narrative that few games have reached. But in terms of technical merits, it's old news. I don't mean for that to diminish the game at all. In fact, the opposite. Despite the fact that it's no longer the technical powerhouse it once was, it's still a bloody fantastic game.
I assumed he meant in terms of completely exploiting a piece of hardware for all it's worth, and then some. All the stuff that plain shouldn't have been possible on the PS2 - HDR, the motion blur - really pulled the hardware through the ringer, as the frame rate shows.
Because otherwise, yeah, the game is by no means unsurpassed in modern games.
Yes I mean the exploiting of the hardware, Ignoring the actual game its-self. What im getting about is that most dev teams are very capable of creating awesome games and with inferior hardware teams are more experienced on and can exploit far better. The real problem with this usually ends up being time, most dev teams have to complete projects in unrealistic timeframes these days (or given too much time but thats another matter). Or worse still a really great dev team gets broken up after a project to other teams.
It has more to do with the demographics of the Wii audience.
Boom Blox is the best Wii game and was disappointing at the cash register.
There is nothing Nintendo, or anyone else can do. Shovelware sells. It has done. It will do. The situation will not, can not, change in the next 3-4 years.
Sales of Boom Blox were good enough to merit a sequel.
Sequels are green-light because they leverage existing asset and engine investments.
Yes, surely that's the only reason.
Haven't EA come out several times and said that they were happy with the sales of Boom Blox?
Yes - the only hard number is 450k (thru Aug 08), and that should be more than enough for a sequel unless the game had a really huge budget. If it even has a small "long tail" effect it is probably past a half million by now.
As the months go by and the videogame releases get larger and larger, so too does the advertising for these games. It seems like videogame companies are locked in an arms race to come up with the most inventive ways of getting the word out on their games, and you can see this in action just through the billboards they come up with.
The latest bizarre sighting on this front is this new building-sized ad for Resistance 2 in Los Angeles currently towering over Wilshire Blvd (via G4's The Feed). The ad depicts the new Leviathan boss doing what he does best: smashing through things and looking crap-your-pants scary while doing so. I can only imagine the fear that must grip the hapless commuter who just glances up on his way to work in the morning.
I'm not seeing how it is supposed to make me want the game.
I rented the Wii version, and as much as I tried to like it, they ruined the controls. If you only play it on easy and sometimes medium, it works well enough...but try on hard or expert (which is how I play Samba) the remotes don't register half of what you do.
It saddend me how bad the controls were.
Would it be fun for young children on the easy mode?
I'm not a "young child" but I had an absolute blast for the 20 minutes I played it at a friend's house. Heck, I was going to pick it up at $20...for $10? Yes, please!
Apparently the original game's controllers worked by registering height, whereas the Wii game works by angles...this might throw a lot of people off...
It's $20 at Wal-Mart now. I think I'm gonna pick it up this weekend. Loved the DC original.
Hell, it's $10 from Amazon, order it there.
So you don't mind getting exposed to music in the game you've never heard of before? :P
Awesome. My prime trial ends tomorrow so I get free shipping woo!
Just wanted to note that I got my Samba de Amigo in today. I played it a bit before I ate dinner, and seems fun. However, I had to switch back to my wired nunchuck from the nyko wireless one I use because the nunchuck would flip out and recognize a constant shaking, when I wasn't doing it.
Wtf is this? What console are they talking about here or are they just making stupid shit up to try and be funny?
Either you're very good at internet sarcasm or very bad.
I get its parody, but their accusations make no sense in that context.
ONION
Fine. I just assumed they were outright mocking something in an over-zealous fashion. I didn't realise they're just assholes who think the word 'fuck' is hilarious the more times you say it.
Heck, I love my Sony products, and I laughed out loud at it. The Onion is brilliant. I think it's more of a parody of clueless tech-consumers than Sony products. Everything they say is pretty much the uninformed rantings of every forum-browsing idiot you've ever seen.
How can you NOT like the Onion? It's Uhmerka's finest news source. *grin*
Wtf is this? What console are they talking about here or are they just making stupid shit up to try and be funny?
Either you're very good at internet sarcasm or very bad.
I get its parody, but their accusations make no sense in that context.
You're right.
I mean it's a common fact that Sony products are universally convenient, easy to use and understand.
They should probably issue a public retraction.
Their ads make perfect sense. Nobody has ever laughed at their frequently nonsensical ads.
That's why I refuse to buy a PS3 until my baby* grows to be at least 12 yrs old. Whatever it is PS3s and babies do to each other when in the same room is not something I want to be going on in my house.
*(poster may not actually have baby)
lowlylowlycook on
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
It has more to do with the demographics of the Wii audience.
Boom Blox is the best Wii game and was disappointing at the cash register.
There is nothing Nintendo, or anyone else can do. Shovelware sells. It has done. It will do. The situation will not, can not, change in the next 3-4 years.
Wait - I have to dispute this.
EA said that this game's sales met expectations and that it is considered successful enough to merit the sequel that has been officially announced.
In other words, there is official confirmation that Boom Blox sales did not disappoint, but that it met expectations, and that for this reason there is a sequel
How often do you hear CEOs say 'our game sold badly'?
Also, 'continues to sell well' is in no way an indication of EAs attitude towards overall sales. They were certainly initially very slow indeed. Price drops, bundles and special deals all contribute to raw sales but not the money reaching the publisher.
I know that when I bought Boom Blox which was pretty much when it came out it was already £10 off.
Amazon are now selling it for less than half price, £15.
It sold enough to warrant a sequel because, for one, the cost to produce a sequel is a fraction of the development outlay of the original. Same engine, same design, same tools, same visual aesthetic. All they need to do is add in a bunch of new modes and let their design team sit with the scenario editor for a few months and BAM.
How often do you hear CEOs say 'our game sold badly'?
They do indirectly. They mostly just use phrases that mean the same thing. Some of these are:
Are off to a slow start
Slower than expected
Actions that show they think it sold poorly:
They never mention it again after its initial release
They promise to make up for the failings of the game
There are also things beside success and failure. Boom Blox couldn't have been expensive to develop, probably made a profit, and are making a sequel with DLC so they must think the fanbase is large enough to make that kind of thing worthwhile.
How often do you hear CEOs say 'our game sold badly'?
EA's been very open lately about their successful games (Boom Blox for example), and their poorly selling ones (Need for Speed Whatever it was). IIRC, they even said that Rock Band 2 was not selling as well as they expected (initially).
Also, 'continues to sell well' is in no way an indication of EAs attitude towards overall sales. They were certainly initially very slow indeed. Price drops, bundles and special deals all contribute to raw sales but not the money reaching the publisher.
It took them forever to drop the price, and then by only $10, and it was never bundled.
Also, "meeting expectations" is in direct contrast to what you said, which was that it was a "disappointment". They also said, a couple of months later, that it "continuing to sell well." I'm calling into question the basis for your statement, since the greater weight of the evidence is against it.
Also, why even later would EA come out to reinforce the notion by saying "continuing to sell well" at all if it wasn't? Especially after saying that it meets expectations? Especially after attaining pretty high sales numbers?
I know that when I bought Boom Blox which was pretty much when it came out it was already £10 off.
Amazon are now selling it for less than half price, £15.
It sold enough to warrant a sequel because, for one, the cost to produce a sequel is a fraction of the development outlay of the original. Same engine, same design, same tools, same visual aesthetic. All they need to do is add in a bunch of new modes and let their design team sit with the scenario editor for a few months and BAM.
You said that it sold poorly but it didn't, according to EA and hard numbers. That's all I'm saying. They said it was meeting expecations initially, not that it was a disappointemnt. Later great sales figures came out, and EA said it was continuing to sell well. They barely dropped the price many many months after its release. They've announced a sequel. They've done all this amidst mentioning other games that have sold poorly. They are refocusing efforts on the Wii console because of their success on the platform.
I just wanted to straighten out the matter that Boom Blox is, indeed, a success for EA, according to EA, reinforced by EA, and according to data.
Didn't EA itself say that Mirror's Edge and Dead Space were not selling up to expectations?
One of their reps said that Mirror's Edge was selling "miserably" (his word for it), but that Dead Space was fairing "better."
EA has also stated that NFS whatever it was called was doing poorly.
They have also said that they were going to start cuttign skus from the 'bottom levels of profitability.'
Among other things.
It's not like they just decide to come out of nowhere to lie about a random game just to say that it's meeting expectations and selling well when it's not.
My issue is, if someone has no basis for calling a game a "disappointment," why is it that no basis is better evidence than actual affirmative statements from the company, that were later reiterated, and then later reinforced with actual sales data?
I guess the reason I felt compelled to bring up the Boom Blox thing again is because there often seems to be a "default presumption" that any good game, new-ip, from a third party on the Wii doesn't get good sales. However, there are some very key, very important games from third parties that have sold well, and there is not only hard numbers to support this, but developer/publisher statements to this effect, as well as other evidence.
Boom Blox happens to be one of those.
So please, I don't mind opinions regarding what one may think the Wii (or any other console's) installed base or market to be, but if someone is going to support their viewpoint with evidence, at least be correct about the evidence.
Didn't EA itself say that Mirror's Edge and Dead Space were not selling up to expectations?
One of their reps said that Mirror's Edge was selling "miserably" (his word for it), but that Dead Space was fairing "better."
EA has also stated that NFS whatever it was called was doing poorly.
They have also said that they were going to start cuttign skus from the 'bottom levels of profitability.'
Among other things.
It's not like they just decide to come out of nowhere to lie about a random game just to say that it's meeting expectations and selling well when it's not.
My issue is, if someone has no basis for calling a game a "disappointment," why is it that no basis is better evidence than actual affirmative statements from the company, that were later reiterated, and then later reinforced with actual sales data?
And yet we know that both Dead Space and Mirror's Edge are over a million now and the most recent NFS sold over 5 million. I submit that words from EA at this point are worthless. Only #s matter.
And yet we know that both Dead Space and Mirror's Edge are over a million now and the most recent NFS sold over 5 million. I submit that words from EA at this point are worthless. Only #s matter.
Selling over a million can still be a disappointment. For example, the latest Tomb Raider game was a disappointment despite shipping over two million.
Didn't EA itself say that Mirror's Edge and Dead Space were not selling up to expectations?
One of their reps said that Mirror's Edge was selling "miserably" (his word for it), but that Dead Space was fairing "better."
EA has also stated that NFS whatever it was called was doing poorly.
They have also said that they were going to start cuttign skus from the 'bottom levels of profitability.'
Among other things.
It's not like they just decide to come out of nowhere to lie about a random game just to say that it's meeting expectations and selling well when it's not.
My issue is, if someone has no basis for calling a game a "disappointment," why is it that no basis is better evidence than actual affirmative statements from the company, that were later reiterated, and then later reinforced with actual sales data?
And yet we know that both Dead Space and Mirror's Edge are over a million now and the most recent NFS sold over 5 million. I submit that words from EA at this point are worthless. Only #s matter.
A game can sell over a million and still fail to meet company expectations. Max Payne 2 is like the perfect example of this. Tomb Raider Whatever it was Called is another example.
NFS whatever was released on a trillion platforms. So perhaps developing the game and its many, many iterations wasn't enough to meet the kind of money that EA was expecting in return.
Perhaps a million copies of Dead Space, given its high production values and massive marketing and brand/franchise building campaign, really was a disappointment when spread across 3 platforms that are prohibitively expensive to develop and publish for.
Didn't EA itself say that Mirror's Edge and Dead Space were not selling up to expectations?
One of their reps said that Mirror's Edge was selling "miserably" (his word for it), but that Dead Space was fairing "better."
EA has also stated that NFS whatever it was called was doing poorly.
They have also said that they were going to start cuttign skus from the 'bottom levels of profitability.'
Among other things.
It's not like they just decide to come out of nowhere to lie about a random game just to say that it's meeting expectations and selling well when it's not.
My issue is, if someone has no basis for calling a game a "disappointment," why is it that no basis is better evidence than actual affirmative statements from the company, that were later reiterated, and then later reinforced with actual sales data?
And yet we know that both Dead Space and Mirror's Edge are over a million now and the most recent NFS sold over 5 million. I submit that words from EA at this point are worthless. Only #s matter.
A game can sell over a million and still fail to meet company expectations. Max Payne 2 is like the perfect example of this. Tomb Raider Whatever it was Called is another example.
NFS whatever was released on a trillion platforms. So perhaps developing the game and its many, many iterations wasn't enough to meet the kind of money that EA was expecting in return.
Numbers matter, but numbers need context.
Yeah but seriously fuck expectations. There is no way in this world a game that sold 5+ million wasn't profitable. While a game that only sold 400k even on the Wii could be struggling to make money. My point is simply that EA is spinning their press releases. Dead Space made money, as did Mirror's Edge and there is no question in my mind NFS made buckets.
I also don't get what he means about how words from EA don't matter...a major point of this discussion is why a sequel would get made. Well, if EA says it sold poorly, that's an indicator of why a sequel might not happen. Even if you think a million seller means it's a great property, if it loses more money than it makes and EA calls it a wash, then I think that's something we might be able to draw conclusions from.
EDIT: They're spinning their press releases? They're calling certain games disappointing in front of investors and this is all elaborate spin since the game clearly did well enough?
While a game that only sold 400k even on the Wii could be struggling to make money.
Depends. A worldwide total of that would be good for many Japanese developed games. I think Nippon Ichi and Atlus games would probably be happy to sell that amount.
Posts
3DS Friend Code: 0404-6826-4588 PM if you add.
Sequels are green-light because they leverage existing asset and engine investments.
I agree that a great team can get the most out of whatever platform they are working on, but honestly, there are few teams in the industry that are "great". Like it or a not, most companies have teams that aren't AAA-talent, and I do think it's unfair to expect anything otherwise. So, a little help and direction for your average Dev team is likely to be much appreciated.
Also, this is a bit of a nitpick, but as much as I love Shadow of the Colossus, I disagree that it has "technical achievements that most next gen games still haven't done". Come on now, really? I definitely agree that it sets the bar for mood, environment, immersiveness, and narrative that few games have reached. But in terms of technical merits, it's old news. I don't mean for that to diminish the game at all. In fact, the opposite. Despite the fact that it's no longer the technical powerhouse it once was, it's still a bloody fantastic game.
- Don't add me, I'm at/near the friend limit
Steam: JC_Rooks
Twitter: http://twitter.com/JiunweiC
I work on this: http://www.xbox.com
Yes, surely that's the only reason.
Haven't EA come out several times and said that they were happy with the sales of Boom Blox?
Because otherwise, yeah, the game is by no means unsurpassed in modern games.
edit - anyone have the link to that site with all detailing the techno-wizardry in SotC?
Yes I mean the exploiting of the hardware, Ignoring the actual game its-self. What im getting about is that most dev teams are very capable of creating awesome games and with inferior hardware teams are more experienced on and can exploit far better. The real problem with this usually ends up being time, most dev teams have to complete projects in unrealistic timeframes these days (or given too much time but thats another matter). Or worse still a really great dev team gets broken up after a project to other teams.
Yes - the only hard number is 450k (thru Aug 08), and that should be more than enough for a sequel unless the game had a really huge budget. If it even has a small "long tail" effect it is probably past a half million by now.
Those ads are still better than most Sony advertising.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3170794
I'm not seeing how it is supposed to make me want the game.
Wtf is this? What console are they talking about here or are they just making stupid shit up to try and be funny?
The Onion make shit up? Surely you jest.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
Either you're very good at internet sarcasm or very bad.
Just wanted to note that I got my Samba de Amigo in today. I played it a bit before I ate dinner, and seems fun. However, I had to switch back to my wired nunchuck from the nyko wireless one I use because the nunchuck would flip out and recognize a constant shaking, when I wasn't doing it.
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
I get its parody, but their accusations make no sense in that context.
ONION
Fine. I just assumed they were outright mocking something in an over-zealous fashion. I didn't realise they're just assholes who think the word 'fuck' is hilarious the more times you say it.
You're right.
I mean it's a common fact that Sony products are universally convenient, easy to use and understand.
They should probably issue a public retraction.
Because I will start another Revolutionary War if I have to. Don't think I won't.
Their ads make perfect sense. Nobody has ever laughed at their frequently nonsensical ads.
How can you NOT like the Onion? It's Uhmerka's finest news source. *grin*
That's why I refuse to buy a PS3 until my baby* grows to be at least 12 yrs old. Whatever it is PS3s and babies do to each other when in the same room is not something I want to be going on in my house.
*(poster may not actually have baby)
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
I just laughed out loud because I imagined an Onion article about Killzone fanboys ala the Adam Sessler thing.
Even the things the Onion doesn't write are funny.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
Wait - I have to dispute this.
EA said that this game's sales met expectations and that it is considered successful enough to merit the sequel that has been officially announced.
In other words, there is official confirmation that Boom Blox sales did not disappoint, but that it met expectations, and that for this reason there is a sequel
He said that it was a disappointment "at the cash register"
When EA has come out and stated that it was successful
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
Also, 'continues to sell well' is in no way an indication of EAs attitude towards overall sales. They were certainly initially very slow indeed. Price drops, bundles and special deals all contribute to raw sales but not the money reaching the publisher.
I know that when I bought Boom Blox which was pretty much when it came out it was already £10 off.
Amazon are now selling it for less than half price, £15.
It sold enough to warrant a sequel because, for one, the cost to produce a sequel is a fraction of the development outlay of the original. Same engine, same design, same tools, same visual aesthetic. All they need to do is add in a bunch of new modes and let their design team sit with the scenario editor for a few months and BAM.
Are off to a slow start
Slower than expected
Actions that show they think it sold poorly:
They never mention it again after its initial release
They promise to make up for the failings of the game
There are also things beside success and failure. Boom Blox couldn't have been expensive to develop, probably made a profit, and are making a sequel with DLC so they must think the fanbase is large enough to make that kind of thing worthwhile.
EA's been very open lately about their successful games (Boom Blox for example), and their poorly selling ones (Need for Speed Whatever it was). IIRC, they even said that Rock Band 2 was not selling as well as they expected (initially).
It took them forever to drop the price, and then by only $10, and it was never bundled.
Also, "meeting expectations" is in direct contrast to what you said, which was that it was a "disappointment". They also said, a couple of months later, that it "continuing to sell well." I'm calling into question the basis for your statement, since the greater weight of the evidence is against it.
Also, why even later would EA come out to reinforce the notion by saying "continuing to sell well" at all if it wasn't? Especially after saying that it meets expectations? Especially after attaining pretty high sales numbers?
You said that it sold poorly but it didn't, according to EA and hard numbers. That's all I'm saying. They said it was meeting expecations initially, not that it was a disappointemnt. Later great sales figures came out, and EA said it was continuing to sell well. They barely dropped the price many many months after its release. They've announced a sequel. They've done all this amidst mentioning other games that have sold poorly. They are refocusing efforts on the Wii console because of their success on the platform.
I just wanted to straighten out the matter that Boom Blox is, indeed, a success for EA, according to EA, reinforced by EA, and according to data.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
One of their reps said that Mirror's Edge was selling "miserably" (his word for it), but that Dead Space was fairing "better."
EA has also stated that NFS whatever it was called was doing poorly.
They have also said that they were going to start cuttign skus from the 'bottom levels of profitability.'
Among other things.
It's not like they just decide to come out of nowhere to lie about a random game just to say that it's meeting expectations and selling well when it's not.
My issue is, if someone has no basis for calling a game a "disappointment," why is it that no basis is better evidence than actual affirmative statements from the company, that were later reiterated, and then later reinforced with actual sales data?
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
Boom Blox happens to be one of those.
So please, I don't mind opinions regarding what one may think the Wii (or any other console's) installed base or market to be, but if someone is going to support their viewpoint with evidence, at least be correct about the evidence.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
And yet we know that both Dead Space and Mirror's Edge are over a million now and the most recent NFS sold over 5 million. I submit that words from EA at this point are worthless. Only #s matter.
A game can sell over a million and still fail to meet company expectations. Max Payne 2 is like the perfect example of this. Tomb Raider Whatever it was Called is another example.
NFS whatever was released on a trillion platforms. So perhaps developing the game and its many, many iterations wasn't enough to meet the kind of money that EA was expecting in return.
Perhaps a million copies of Dead Space, given its high production values and massive marketing and brand/franchise building campaign, really was a disappointment when spread across 3 platforms that are prohibitively expensive to develop and publish for.
Numbers matter, but numbers need context.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
Yeah but seriously fuck expectations. There is no way in this world a game that sold 5+ million wasn't profitable. While a game that only sold 400k even on the Wii could be struggling to make money. My point is simply that EA is spinning their press releases. Dead Space made money, as did Mirror's Edge and there is no question in my mind NFS made buckets.
EDIT: They're spinning their press releases? They're calling certain games disappointing in front of investors and this is all elaborate spin since the game clearly did well enough?