Quote
Originally posted by: JonLeung
Playing devil's advocate here, but doesn't developing for a single console and choosing the one with the most games mean that it will get lost in the flood of all the other games? You could also make the case that by developing for the one with the least games, your title would stand out more and be picked up by a greater percentage of that console's gamers.
If one in twenty people bought a game out of 1000 total users of that console, and one in fifty people bought a game out of 2000 total users, the first case is more sales. 5% of 1000 people (50 sales) is larger than 2% of 2000 people (40 sales).
I know what you're saying, but it worked for Sony in obscene ways (almost literally).
The more games, the more people will buy your console because it has more games. The more consoles sold, the more developers will feel safe developing for it. Of course, you have to kickstart one to get the other moving.
I guess I technically have it backwards: developers made games for the PS2 because it had the most consoles sold which in turn gave it the most games, which does dilute the number of games likely to sell (because there are so many out there) but my guess is that, after enough players are out there who have the console, there are enough to "go around", so to speak.
In any case, more games = better for the console, regardless of quality. That's not to say that quality games are unnecessary, but having a plethora of titles available is one more selling point to lure customers to your platform when it comes time to make a choice between you or your competition.
–SB
Show Posts
