TunaLover said:
No, your point was "there´s a game because they sell" hence more games, money hat doesn´t follow that logic. If it was, then 360 rpg should be able to sell well, which not.
No. Read again.
My point was that if Media-create could determine where Japanese developers put their games, then Japanese developers wouldn't put their games on the 360. Yet they do.
My point is that games go exclusive for all sorts of reasons - financial incentive from console manufacturer ("moneyhats," if you prefer), co-op advertising, ease of development, prevelence of toolsets, track record of genre success for software sales, etc - that have nothing to do with Sales-Age cumulative hardware totals.
Panther admits this himself within the very thread he's created to try and bolster this theory - which I quoted "And no, I don't really think that devs care, in relation to their hardcore franchises."
My point is this - if Sales-Age cumulative analysis were able to show us where "major" (his words, not mine) exclusive game announcements would occur, then his examination is useful. But if he's readily admitting that they aren't, then this entire subject of discussion - which he has pushed twice in three months - is moot.
schuelma said:
I disagree. Yes, the 360 has gotten quite a lot of JRPG love, but 1- those games have clearly been in development for a long time and 2-look beyond those few games and you'll see that Japanese companies are releasing significantly more Wii exclusives the longer and longer we go. Now, its true that there haven't been any OMG MEGATONS aside from MH3, but a lot of solid stuff has been announced and I expect the uptick to continue.
I'm not here to push an agenda, or frankly to talk about Xbox360 JRPGs.
You seem to want to argue that it's possible that developers will begin to support the Wii with better, bigger titles.
That's fine.
That's an opinion.
I have no problem with an opinion or someone stating it as such.
You may be right. I don't know. Like I said, I tend to operate by the primitive philosophy of simply believing what I see, but you're free to prognosticate the market in any direction you please.
What bothers me is that there seems to be this continued insistence by Panther that there is a direct correlation between A and B, when there is no data or evidence to back it up.
It's not even a "causation does not equal correlation" problem. There is no correlation to begin with. Reality is in direct opposition to this theory, so I don't understand the point in re-examining it. Particularly if, as I pointed out, he's readily admitting himself that the people in question (producers of said major titles) simply do not care.