That is an extremely fair assessment. However, those are covered under and included in production costs. You cannot make a "budget" without accounting for your various expenditures. But even if that was not the case, Im certain that the EU markets figures + DD figures, Plus the whittle down profits are MORE than enough to make up for that any other extraneous costs such as having to pay bigger names like Todd McFarlane, R.A.Salvatore, etc.Hal10k said:
Yeah, an initial assessment of 330K sales in a relatively limited market probably means that the game is more than going to make up its development costs. But there's something important about game distribution that you don't seem to be taking into account. Distributors like Gamestop typically don't pass their profits back to the publisher directly. Rather, they just purchase the games from publishers outright- usually for around $30- and sell them back to the consumer for the inflated price. If the game sees enough sales, they'll purchase more copies of the game. If the price of the game drops significantly, it's usually a sign that either the store has stopped purchasing them from the publisher, or the publisher has dropped their asking price significantly as well.viranimus said:
And NDP doesn't track all stores. This includes Wal-Mart, last I knew. But:viranimus said:
This is assuming pure profit aside from the following "production" costs.
I've read higher. It also depends on how you're defining "produce," because you're using it for what is generally considered development costs. To take the final product and get it to stores, the distribution cost, is an additional charge.
So pure assumption - incomplete number based on an average and neglecting distribution and promotion = number that doesn't mean much to anyone.
that's not how it works, there.
IF the production costs are in line with your guess, yes it has. It has not necessarily funded a sequel, however. That's fairly optimistic based on no real info.
"pure profit" in the eyes of a kid with a lemonade stand, perhaps.
Based on what? This game HAD an online pass. They could just as easily attribute its success to such an incentive, and both them and you have equal justification to work with. That is to say: nothing.
I'm going to have to give you partial credit. You got a valid answer with some lousy math. Please see me after class.
EA doesn't own the studio or IP rights so they can't do anything. Get your facts straight before posting blatant bullshit.Sylveria said:
It's new IP. It's just not original.Kenjitsuka said:"While EA should release the final word on Amalur's sales soon, these figures are fairly promising for the would-be new series"
As Yahtzee said, it's a massive rehash of Tolkiens ONE take on fantasy (read Extra Punctuation...), and it may be nice, but, seriously? This is not a "new" IP, since it's basically ripping off 99% of the games in it's genre before it. Now, Ashura's Wrath might be considdered an actual new IP (at least in gaming)... Let's hope that does well!
