Results 51 to 75 of 272
Last edited by mynd; 03-17-2012 at 06:39.
They are only for 3/4 of the last year.
•FY06 / July 1, 2005 - June 30, 2006: 5.0 Million
•FY07 / July 1, 2006 - June 30, 2007: 6.6 Million
FY08 / July 1, 2007 - June 30, 2008: 8.9 Million
FY09 / July 1, 2008 - June 30, 2009: 11.1 Million
FY10 / July 1, 2009 - June 30, 2010: 10.3 Million
FY11 / July 1, 2010 - June 30, 2011: 13.4 Million
1/2 Year July 1, 2011 - Dec 31, 2011: 10.5 Million
The marginal decrease (800k) was hardly a decline.
And even thats not techically true, they had a poor 09 Xmas, down 800k.
Outside of that, their sales where tracking exactly the same as the year before.
It wasnt graduall, or even a decline, it was simply a bad Xmas in 09.
Last edited by mynd; 03-17-2012 at 06:48.
The increase is definitely due to Kinect. Kinect was probably the only reason we didn't see a decline for FY11.
03-17-2012 #55Soldier 95BGuest
Thought I had missed something....
"Creating core IP, as many first-and third-parties have seen over the years, isn't an easy thing," he explained.
"I went through the process of creating Gears with Epic and I know the sweat, time, and effort hat went into it," Spencer added. "I also worked on things like Alan Wake, Too Human, Crackdown, and stuff that didn't hit the same level of success, but had an equal amount of sweat equity and heart go into getting created."
The Gears titles took around 10 - 13 million to create. Epic was already creating gears without his help at the start of this gen. It's what made the 360 what it is today as far as specs. Too Human cost them 80million(another title being created before MS stepped in). There's no excuse for that title turning out bad other than MS bad management(since he's taking credit for this stuff). They didn't promote Alan Wake(another title being created before MS stepped in) and they rushed crackdown 2 which I believe it was like 13months of dev time.
They say this...
"So it will continue to be something that we focus on with new partners like Crytek and new people that aren't announced yet. We do think that it's fundamental that core gamers look at 360 as the place they want to play games."
Sony makes less profit than MS and they take risk with new i.p's. I'm not saying they all are successful but atleast they are trying. The titles that do get sequels are titles that are making them a profit. And more than half the time Sony does a real $#@! job promoting their titles compared to how MS promote theirs.
*No list wars people. This can be talked about without that*
Ghost likes this post
- Join Date
- Nov 2010
- PSN ID
- Rep Power
I'm not saying which is right or which is wrong, but in my eyes MS has nothing to offer to the hardcore gamer except a select few games.I wonder when a nuclear warhead goes off, does the frame rate of real life drop?
mistake calling it shooter. Point is it is on rail. and you shoot magic and stuff.
Last edited by War; 03-17-2012 at 20:10.
Fable is a shooter?
I wanted to get your perspective on the sales of Sony first-party titles compared to say, Microsoft. Sony published many titles in 2011, but most didnít sell as well as you probably expected. Microsoft, released one game, Gears of War 3, which outsold many of Sonyís games combined. How do you evaluate that? Is this just a marketing issue?
Itís a combination of many things. First, we have to be very honest about our gamesí quality as well. We love our games, but we can point out many issues when you look at the titles individually.
Another thing is focus. When you have ten games coming out in a year compared to two or three, how much focus you get from our business and marketing side is very hard. From a portfolio side, we were very excited about the games we had last year, but we probably diluted support for each title.
as always, more does not = better and in the case of PS3, more is definitely not better.
Last edited by mistercrow; 03-17-2012 at 20:31.
fact of the matter is, if you own a 360 there are more than enough core tittles coming out this year to keep you happy without MS having any need to release them. i'm thinking for the most part, 360 owners are happy with what there getting, while those that support PS3 try to use it as something....... then again, if you have a PS3 why would you worry about the lack of MS core games? surely PS3 has enough to keep you happy?
sainraja likes this post
When you say quality over quantity, what happens when that is busted when the competition is releasing quality at a higher quantity too? hmmmm
Anyways.. this isn't even about 360 vs PS3; yet it always derails into that here. I don't see any way someone can defend Microsoft saying that they are focused on core releases. Let's leave the PS3 out of this because quite frankly if you compare first party core games between the two, Microsoft comes unarmed these days.
So, topic, Microsoft, focus, core... where is it? Show me the core games MICROSOFT is releasing, has released, etc. I get plenty of core gaming on the 360, definitely, no doubting that. Most of it is at the expense of third parties though.
Just my take on it though...
Last edited by mistercrow; 03-17-2012 at 21:00.
Unless I'm mistaken, SCE is a profitable business now. Even if each game doesn't sell 3-5 million like the blockbusters, they are getting more games out there that are being well received as far as metacritic is concerned.
Core games though... CORE games Ghost. How many 1st party core games does Msoft have up that high?
Oh I agree. I have a TON of games to play on the 360, core games at that ... however, I take issue with people that say Microsoft is focused on core gaming when they have shown since Kinect launched that they are absolutely not focused on that sector of gaming beyond their already established threepeat of core games.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)