Topic: EA against Wii U

Dn't you factor in development costs something that should be doubled since ZombIU started development as a xbox game in 2010-2011.

Development costs should be doubled to $30 million because the game was already being developed? Are you guys familiar with development costs for other games? lol

I'd also like to see the source that says Zombie U began development in 2010 on another platform. A $30 mil project on the Wii U would be a huge gamble and its highly unlikely this is the case.

@AlexSays
I said $15 million spent requires at least 250,000 copies sold. I figured you would include any other cost to run a company into those numbers. If a company costs another $3 million to keeping running and paying workers, that's another 50,000 copies they have to sell.

This is based on now many games the are from the same company at one time.

I would also like to add that Ubisoft probably spent $10,000,000 to get all their ports on the eShop. There's basically no way in hell everyone is going to buy 4-5 $60 games from one company. They spammed the eShop, but it was with good intention.
In otherwords, Ubisoft had too much faith in Wii U being successful, and have now needed to back off because of their losses.
It's still Ubisoft's fault their games are selling poorly if that's true.

And I'm still telling you this is wrong. There is no known scenario or source of this happening.

Publishers do not receive the total amount of money made from each sale, and you even said there are other expenses, ie. distribution, production, labor. Therefore saying a game needs only X amount to be profitable is horribly misleading.

Unless you can come up with a company with a known development cost that only sold X copies of their game, and considered it a success, you are just making things up. There's no evidence that a $15 mil game only needs to sell 250k copies, or even 300k copies to be profitable. None whatsoever.

@AlexSays
I never made any mention of not being able to afford games, you're fabricating your argument from perceived slights. My argument has almost nothing to do with what you're talking about. Sit down and relax. If game prices rise, they will rise, but it WOULD be a disturbing trend because the game prices do NOT need to rise, as exemplified by Nintendo's "next gen" offerings holding at the same price point and PC titles (which have been "next gen" for over half a year now) holding at the same price point. Therefore, my argument is that the precedent of the $60 game has already been established in this new generation by companies already there, and for EA to raise the price would be a money grab, not a necessity or reality of the market.

So EA should price their games, because of how other people price their games?

That makes no sense. They can price them wherever they want. They can make them $100 each. If they are successful at that price point, it was a good decision. If they aren't successful, they'll lower the price.

This isn't difficult. The only factor that determines their price point is profit. If they can be more profitable at a higher price, nobody is in a position to tell them 'game prices do not need to rise'. That's saying "Yeah so you could be more profitable than you are now, but other people are doing this so you should do this too".

Let EA decide if their games should be priced higher or not. If they raise them, consumers will vote with their money. If they vote in favor of increased prices, there is no logical or moral reasoning as to why they should have kept them lower. If people vote against the higher prices, EA will suffer and they'll have to revert back to what was more successful.

Uhm ... you just contradicted yourself. You obviously know nothing of business, though you pretend to know a lot. Where did you get your degree? The internet? There IS quite a clear logical reasoning why EA should keep their games competitively priced. It would be business suicide to charge more than competing companies for similar/same product. Absolute business suicide.

You're in a corner, dude. Just back out of this with some dignity left.

So I contradicted myself, yet you'd rather not point it out. Ok then.

I would like to see your research that guarantees EA would be committing 'business suicide' by increasing their prices. Obviously they feel differently. I'm guessing your business degree is more valuable than that of their market analysts?

I also believe your interesting take on verbal comprehension has you believing I want them to raise prices. I did not say they should, I said they are perfectly within their rights to do so and it may or may not be successful. Since we have no evidence that they would definitely be less profitable, we're in no position to tell them what they should do, like you have been in this thread. If they have given this serious thought, obviously they have analysts claiming this has a shot at a success. Your ramblings in this thread won't change that.

On a final note, not addressing anything I've said and simply saying 'you suck you're dumb you know nothing' isn't helping you much here. If I was 'back in a corner' it should be much easier to refute my point.

Everybody says everything sucks, but it really depends. I like every game company besides Sony(PS branch), so they never get my money(anymore. I've bought a few PS games, but it wasn't worth it, IMO). I would buy that gimped Wii U version of Madden '13 or DLCless COD Black Ops II game over a Sony game anyday.
It's not because I hate Sony. I just don't like the video games they put out. I still have lots of non-gaming Sony products laying around, and I still have my PSBluray Player.

I was agreeing with you that people hate one thing or another for whatever reason.
That's fine. I'm not baiting anyone. I just want to make it known that while Nintendo gets alot of grief from "fans", there are still people that like Nintendo more than Sony despite all the "negatives" in comparison.