What do you think the ratio of console sales needs to be to stop producing...

#1TheMuffinPosted 2/28/2014 10:28:32 AM
For both competitors? I was thinking about this after reading through the sales charts posted in another thread and it hit me that eventually, if the sales of one console outweigh the other that it would be just as or more profitable to design your game for one system only as that would be more cost efficient than spending time on the design/port work for both. I mean, if you have 100 people that own this console and 100 own another, it makes complete sense to develop for both as you have a good chance of scooping in relatively even sales from both. However if 40 people own this console and 200 own the other, there has to be some incentive to only design for the one system right?

I know specs are similar between the two competitors, but there is obviously design time/money spent to ensure it works on both. So where do you think the tipping point is where publishers and developers believe they would be just as successful releasing for only one system over the other? 4:1? 6:1? 12:1?

The Wii U is not the most perfect example of this, but it's lack of hardware sales and underpowered infrastructure have definitely had a very negative impact on it when it comes to 3rd party support. This was normally overcome by Nintendo due to their 1st party library, but even that is lacking and honestly, much like Gears, Halo and Forza, you will eventually become tired of the sequels.

I've owned MS consoles since 2004, but seeing the estimated sales figures, and knowing it's more expensive and less powerful than it's competitor has me honestly concerned and has put me solidly in the wait and see group for at least this year. I need to know that if I'm going to invest in it for a new generation that it will be there in a few years.
---
SnowFox7 ~I heard him use the term 'tarantula downpour', which would actually have been significantly worse than the rain we had that day.
#2TheMuffin(Topic Creator)Posted 2/28/2014 1:53:20 PM
Bump.
---
SnowFox7 ~I heard him use the term 'tarantula downpour', which would actually have been significantly worse than the rain we had that day.
#3FMofDeathPosted 2/28/2014 1:59:35 PM
They mainly do that for stockholders. Very rarely does a developer not port a game since the other system sold more.
---
PC gaming will always be the choice of the gaming enthusiast who is willing to put in the extra effort for a richer, more rewarding experience
#4PulpPosted 2/28/2014 2:00:43 PM
FMofDeath posted...
They mainly do that for stockholders. Very rarely does a developer not port a game since the other system sold more.


....

.......

LOL!
---
INTEL 533MHZ PIII 512k/133, ALL-IN-Wonder 128 Pro AGP, 128MB SDRAM, Sound Blaster 32AWE, 47GB Elite SCSI, Win98
#5Jiggy101011Posted 2/28/2014 2:06:34 PM
TheMuffin posted...
For both competitors? I was thinking about this after reading through the sales charts posted in another thread and it hit me that eventually, if the sales of one console outweigh the other that it would be just as or more profitable to design your game for one system only as that would be more cost efficient than spending time on the design/port work for both. I mean, if you have 100 people that own this console and 100 own another, it makes complete sense to develop for both as you have a good chance of scooping in relatively even sales from both. However if 40 people own this console and 200 own the other, there has to be some incentive to only design for the one system right?

I know specs are similar between the two competitors, but there is obviously design time/money spent to ensure it works on both. So where do you think the tipping point is where publishers and developers believe they would be just as successful releasing for only one system over the other? 4:1? 6:1? 12:1?

The Wii U is not the most perfect example of this, but it's lack of hardware sales and underpowered infrastructure have definitely had a very negative impact on it when it comes to 3rd party support. This was normally overcome by Nintendo due to their 1st party library, but even that is lacking and honestly, much like Gears, Halo and Forza, you will eventually become tired of the sequels.

I've owned MS consoles since 2004, but seeing the estimated sales figures, and knowing it's more expensive and less powerful than it's competitor has me honestly concerned and has put me solidly in the wait and see group for at least this year. I need to know that if I'm going to invest in it for a new generation that it will be there in a few years.


The PS3 still had games released for it and they trailed behind the Wii and 360 for years. Soooo... what would you like to discuss next TC?
---
Gamertag: F1RE v2 PSN ID: F1REx
If you want to troll, provide a source to backup your claims.
#6TheMuffin(Topic Creator)Posted 2/28/2014 2:20:49 PM
Trailing behind is not the same as what I'm talking about. The PS3 released and was competitive from release. There is a large difference between trailing behind and stumbling and falling.
---
SnowFox7 ~I heard him use the term 'tarantula downpour', which would actually have been significantly worse than the rain we had that day.
#7EllesarienPosted 2/28/2014 2:22:13 PM
TheMuffin posted...
Trailing behind is not the same as what I'm talking about. The PS3 released and was competitive from release. There is a large difference between trailing behind and stumbling and falling.


And now the reason for the posting....
---
I will try and see it from your point of view, but I doubt we'll be able to fit both our heads up there.
#8TheMuffin(Topic Creator)Posted 2/28/2014 2:41:20 PM
Oh please. I'm trying to get an actual conversation going on this board and instead get met with smart ass remarks. I know I shouldn't expect more, but I had held out hope for it.

And even having the thought in your head that I'm a Sony troll is hilarious at best. I've probably got more gamerscore on my Live account than 90% of this board.
---
SnowFox7 ~I heard him use the term 'tarantula downpour', which would actually have been significantly worse than the rain we had that day.