Crash Team Racing: Nitro Fueled (PC release)

[PISSED-OFF-COW]

Hello Steam community!

I want your thoughts on the likelihood of a PC release (preferably Steam) of the upcoming CTR:NF game. The game is set for a June 2019 release on PS4, Switch and Xbone with no mention of PC.

If we rewind a little, the previous Crash Bandicoot remaster, the N-Sane Trilogy, was released on PC separately exactly 1 year after the console versions.

Both the N-Sane Trilogy and Nitro-Fueled remasters are published by Activision, leading me to believe that CTR:NF will also release on Steam, similarly to N-Sane Trilogy, 1 year after the console release, meaning it would land in June 2020. I'll definitely wait until 2020 regardless because I'm not double-dipping.

Do you have any insider news which would suggest reasons either for or against the PC release?

[Zenith]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από crunchyfrog:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Zenith:

I doubt it, tbh. They said "no more support", which sums it all.




Maybe if you learn how to write a cohesive argument it would help.

There's absolutely no call for that.

There was nothing wrong with the crux of my argument, just my wording of that last sentence, which I accept.

Don't be so chidlish.

Because I pointed out that your argument has nothing to do with the topic? Ok, sure. So everytime someone enters in the middle of a conversation talking about something completely different, I'll call them "childish", instead of saying it is not part of the argument/conversation. Thanks for the tip. ̶I̶ ̶h̶o̶p̶e̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶u̶n̶d̶e̶r̶s̶t̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶s̶a̶r̶c̶a̶s̶m̶,̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶h̶i̶s̶t̶o̶r̶i̶c̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶u̶n̶d̶e̶r̶s̶t̶a̶n̶d̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶s̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶r̶e̶a̶d̶.̶

[crunchyfrog]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Zenith:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από crunchyfrog:

There's absolutely no call for that.

There was nothing wrong with the crux of my argument, just my wording of that last sentence, which I accept.

Don't be so chidlish.

Because I pointed out that your argument has nothing to do with the topic? Ok, sure. So everytime someone enters in the middle of a conversation talking about something completely different, I'll call them "childish", instead of saying it is not part of the argument/conversation. Thanks for the tip. ̶I̶ ̶h̶o̶p̶e̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶u̶n̶d̶e̶r̶s̶t̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶s̶a̶r̶c̶a̶s̶m̶,̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶h̶i̶s̶t̶o̶r̶i̶c̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶u̶n̶d̶e̶r̶s̶t̶a̶n̶d̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶s̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶r̶e̶a̶d̶.̶

Sorry, but you seem to be confused about what these pages are then, because they are DISCUSSIONS. One can freely talk precisely and spcieifcally on point or one can also talk AROUND the subject. I did just that.

Now if you truly think that's outside the remit of these forums, well, you're going to have to provide some evidence of how you know that and what makes YOU the arbiter here.

My point was made and still stands, so I suggest you just leave it. And you need to also demonstrate how I don't understand things.

[Zenith]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από crunchyfrog:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Zenith:

Because I pointed out that your argument has nothing to do with the topic? Ok, sure. So everytime someone enters in the middle of a conversation talking about something completely different, I'll call them "childish", instead of saying it is not part of the argument/conversation. Thanks for the tip. ̶I̶ ̶h̶o̶p̶e̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶u̶n̶d̶e̶r̶s̶t̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶s̶a̶r̶c̶a̶s̶m̶,̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶h̶i̶s̶t̶o̶r̶i̶c̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶u̶n̶d̶e̶r̶s̶t̶a̶n̶d̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶s̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶r̶e̶a̶d̶.̶

Sorry, but you seem to be confused about what these pages are then, because they are DISCUSSIONS. One can freely talk precisely and spcieifcally on point or one can also talk AROUND the subject. I did just that.

Now if you truly think that's outside the remit of these forums, well, you're going to have to provide some evidence of how you know that and what makes YOU the arbiter here.

My point was made and still stands, so I suggest you just leave it. And you need to also demonstrate how I don't understand things.

See how you don't understand a word about what I said? I already said I'm not the arbiter, I said I'm not judging, I even said you can talk about it. My point is that your argument doesn't make sense. That's it. And after days, you avoid reading it or simply doesn't understand. I bet you're doing this on purpose.

[_Aquaman_]

Parem com essa discussão idiota caralho. Vão jogar um game e serem felizes.

[Zenith]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Aqua-man:

Parem com essa discussão idiota caralho. Vão jogar um game e serem felizes.

Pau no seu cu. Shuashuashua, tô zoando.

[crunchyfrog]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Zenith:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από crunchyfrog:

Sorry, but you seem to be confused about what these pages are then, because they are DISCUSSIONS. One can freely talk precisely and spcieifcally on point or one can also talk AROUND the subject. I did just that.

Now if you truly think that's outside the remit of these forums, well, you're going to have to provide some evidence of how you know that and what makes YOU the arbiter here.

My point was made and still stands, so I suggest you just leave it. And you need to also demonstrate how I don't understand things.

See how you don't understand a word about what I said? I already said I'm not the arbiter, I said I'm not judging, I even said you can talk about it. My point is that your argument doesn't make sense. That's it. And after days, you avoid reading it or simply doesn't understand. I bet you're doing this on purpose.

No, I'm certainly not. If you said then then I apologise for missing it.

I'm not sure why you think my argument doesn't make sense. You could try asking me for a better explanation? I'd be glad to oblige.

[Zenith]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από crunchyfrog:

No, I'm certainly not. If you said then then I apologise for missing it.

I'm not even writing this time. Just reread them:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Zenith:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από vulcanraven:

Guess i've to clear up a misunderstanding i caused. What i meant in my previous post is if crash bandicoot n. sane trilogy was a failure then we wouldn't have spyro released either. Since both games originally come from ps1 whose fans are 25+ y.o now. Also, Activision reported that they were surprised with the game(crash) sales on consoles considering the game didnt get as much advertisement as the other Activison franchises get. And therefore i came to a conclusion they didn't spend much money on development. And here are some pc ports statistics
positive - negative review
Crash: 8642 - 643
Spyro: 10012 - 426
As you can see Spyro has even better sales on PC and it is worth noting that it came out a year later. I support the idea that the success of one franchise shouldn't affect the other one, but it would put in doubt future pc releases. Have to say i'm a bit surprised Spyro sold more than Crash always thought the latter is more popular.

Remember, Activision's spokesperson said, "stay tuned for more information". Probably we will hear something on Gamescom where Activision confirmed to be a participant.

Future PC releases for the same franchise. But yeah, I agree with you and I am surprised as well. Awesome to know that. It means it is really likely we're getting a new Spyro game after Crash 4, and of course, on PC. Maybe it will release together with the consoles editions because of the good sales on PC.

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από crunchyfrog:

I dig that. I did get you - I was just addressing the Spyro end of it, that's all. It's the other poster that doesn't understand how discussions work.

I undertand how it works, it is just that your point doesn't link to anything on the discussion, that's all. Like I said, you're free to point that whenever you want, but I'm going to keep pointing out that it doesn't link to anything. Let's make an analogy here: it's like we're talking about watermelons and you come to this topic and comment about melons. You can comment it, you have the right to do so and I'm not stopping you from doing that, but we are not talking about this and I'm just pointing that out. You don't need to get angry because of that (I hope you aren't, though), as I am not as well.

There's a difference between pointing out a fact and criticizing a commentary. I'm not doing the second one. If you don't like my commentary, just don't read it. If you read and disagree, you don't need to get angry because of that, as it is not worth to take that sh1tty discussion over a game, right? I think at least you agree with me on that. You can read it and respectfully disagree, and say why one thing relates to the other. But as I'm not seeing the correlations between the two, I'm poiting that out again.

Again, I'm saying you have the right to talk about something not related to the topic, but if I have to point that out, I will. Your commentary is completely public, so expect another public commentaries answering yours at one point or another. That is internet.

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από crunchyfrog:

Indeed, the success of one franchise shouldn't necessarily affect another, but sadly big publishers often don't agree.

I don't think so. When a franchise is doing well and another one is not, they stop producing the franchise that is not going well on sales to focus on the other one, to improve and get even more money from that franchise, to surpass in profit the fact they stopped producing that other franchise. Like, an example: if a developer had 2 franchises, and one doesn't do as well as the other one, this developer won't stop producing both, because he's gonna lose a lot of money from it, and maybe even go bankrupt because of that. So it is unlikely that this would happen. Even more unlikely with bigger publishers and developers.

PS: Just saying that I'm respectfully disagreeing with you. You don't need to go mad at me and say I don't understand how a discussion works, lmao. Geez... We're in a point of history where we have to write that, when it should be obviously implicit in a discussion...

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από crunchyfrog:

I'm not sure why you think my argument doesn't make sense. You could try asking me for a better explanation? I'd be glad to oblige.

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Zenith:

So it doesn't make sense. If N. Sane Trilogy did well, but not Spyro Reignited because of what you say, it means a port is not suitable for a future game from that specific franchise, not CTR: NF, that is, obviously, from another franchise.

The bad sales on one franchise shouldn't affect the other. But if both don't do that well, it would make sense that Activision wouldn't be supporting future ports for their games.

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Zenith:

I don't get it because it doesn't make sense at all. We're talking about a franchise, you're talking about another one, that's my point. One shouldn't affect the other, unless the sales on both are bad, because that reflects on Activivion's bad marketing, not a franchise going badly because of a lean port or whatever other reason that could affect the sales of that specific franchise. If you're just pointing out a problem in one of them, doesn't add to the discussion and doesn't make a point about this topic as well.

Because of that I'm saying that your comment is kinda wrong, because it doesn't add anything to the discussion, or make a link to anything that we're talking about. In any moment I said you can't leave your comment here. Quite the opposite, do as many as you'd like, even though any of them might make sense. But expect my answer pointing out that it still doesn't make sense and don't add anything to the discussion. You are free to be an idiot if you'd want to. I'm not the one stopping you from doing that.

[crunchyfrog]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Zenith:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από crunchyfrog:

No, I'm certainly not. If you said then then I apologise for missing it.

I'm not even writing this time. Just reread them:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Zenith:

Future PC releases for the same franchise. But yeah, I agree with you and I am surprised as well. Awesome to know that. It means it is really likely we're getting a new Spyro game after Crash 4, and of course, on PC. Maybe it will release together with the consoles editions because of the good sales on PC.


I undertand how it works, it is just that your point doesn't link to anything on the discussion, that's all. Like I said, you're free to point that whenever you want, but I'm going to keep pointing out that it doesn't link to anything. Let's make an analogy here: it's like we're talking about watermelons and you come to this topic and comment about melons. You can comment it, you have the right to do so and I'm not stopping you from doing that, but we are not talking about this and I'm just pointing that out. You don't need to get angry because of that (I hope you aren't, though), as I am not as well.

There's a difference between pointing out a fact and criticizing a commentary. I'm not doing the second one. If you don't like my commentary, just don't read it. If you read and disagree, you don't need to get angry because of that, as it is not worth to take that sh1tty discussion over a game, right? I think at least you agree with me on that. You can read it and respectfully disagree, and say why one thing relates to the other. But as I'm not seeing the correlations between the two, I'm poiting that out again.

Again, I'm saying you have the right to talk about something not related to the topic, but if I have to point that out, I will. Your commentary is completely public, so expect another public commentaries answering yours at one point or another. That is internet.


I don't think so. When a franchise is doing well and another one is not, they stop producing the franchise that is not going well on sales to focus on the other one, to improve and get even more money from that franchise, to surpass in profit the fact they stopped producing that other franchise. Like, an example: if a developer had 2 franchises, and one doesn't do as well as the other one, this developer won't stop producing both, because he's gonna lose a lot of money from it, and maybe even go bankrupt because of that. So it is unlikely that this would happen. Even more unlikely with bigger publishers and developers.

PS: Just saying that I'm respectfully disagreeing with you. You don't need to go mad at me and say I don't understand how a discussion works, lmao. Geez... We're in a point of history where we have to write that, when it should be obviously implicit in a discussion...

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από crunchyfrog:

I'm not sure why you think my argument doesn't make sense. You could try asking me for a better explanation? I'd be glad to oblige.

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Zenith:

So it doesn't make sense. If N. Sane Trilogy did well, but not Spyro Reignited because of what you say, it means a port is not suitable for a future game from that specific franchise, not CTR: NF, that is, obviously, from another franchise.

The bad sales on one franchise shouldn't affect the other. But if both don't do that well, it would make sense that Activision wouldn't be supporting future ports for their games.

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Zenith:

I don't get it because it doesn't make sense at all. We're talking about a franchise, you're talking about another one, that's my point. One shouldn't affect the other, unless the sales on both are bad, because that reflects on Activivion's bad marketing, not a franchise going badly because of a lean port or whatever other reason that could affect the sales of that specific franchise. If you're just pointing out a problem in one of them, doesn't add to the discussion and doesn't make a point about this topic as well.

Because of that I'm saying that your comment is kinda wrong, because it doesn't add anything to the discussion, or make a link to anything that we're talking about. In any moment I said you can't leave your comment here. Quite the opposite, do as many as you'd like, even though any of them might make sense. But expect my answer pointing out that it still doesn't make sense and don't add anything to the discussion. You are free to be an idiot if you'd want to. I'm not the one stopping you from doing that.

Oh this! the thing I explained several times.

It's simple - I addressed that SINGLE poiny about Spyro and Crash's chances of re-release and why these decision are made. That's it.

It's because these pages are called DISCUSSIONS. This means you can absolutel stick hard to the subject in hand, but you can ALSO deviate around it and concentrate or divert onto certain side topics too. Y'know, DISCUSSING.

I'm sorry you don't understand this, but that's how it.

And that's ALL I addressed - that ONE point. Nothing else. Dead easy to understand now.

[Zenith]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από crunchyfrog:

Oh this! the thing I explained several times.

It's simple - I addressed that SINGLE poiny about Spyro and Crash's chances of re-release and why these decision are made. That's it.

It's because these pages are called DISCUSSIONS. This means you can absolutel stick hard to the subject in hand, but you can ALSO deviate around it and concentrate or divert onto certain side topics too. Y'know, DISCUSSING.

I'm sorry you don't understand this, but that's how it.

And that's ALL I addressed - that ONE point. Nothing else. Dead easy to understand now.

But, like I said, one franchise shouldn't affect the other. That's why I pointed out your argument doesn't make sense while talking about there's not being a port for CTR: NF. Spyro's sales wouldn't impact the sales on Crash's franchise, since they're different. You know... Not the same. That's why I pointed that out.

You know: DISCUSSION. You make an argument that doesn't make sense, I point that out. Simple, right? As much as you're free to deviate from the topic, I am free to explain why it doens't make sense. Like I explained thousands of times.

[crunchyfrog]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Zenith:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από crunchyfrog:

Oh this! the thing I explained several times.

It's simple - I addressed that SINGLE poiny about Spyro and Crash's chances of re-release and why these decision are made. That's it.

It's because these pages are called DISCUSSIONS. This means you can absolutel stick hard to the subject in hand, but you can ALSO deviate around it and concentrate or divert onto certain side topics too. Y'know, DISCUSSING.

I'm sorry you don't understand this, but that's how it.

And that's ALL I addressed - that ONE point. Nothing else. Dead easy to understand now.

But, like I said, one franchise shouldn't affect the other. That's why I pointed out your argument doesn't make sense while talking about there's not being a port for CTR: NF. Spyro's sales wouldn't impact the sales on Crash's franchise, since they're different. You know... Not the same. That's why I pointed that out.

You know: DISCUSSION. You make an argument that doesn't make sense, I point that out. Simple, right? As much as you're free to deviate from the topic, I am free to explain why it doens't make sense. Like I explained thousands of times.

Ah now there's your mistake then.

I in NO WAY referred to Crash Bandicoot like that. I pointed out Spyro ONLY. THe user I was responding to made the point about SPyro AND Crash, but I ONLY addressed Spyro because I was more familiar with it.

And you can freely say "your argument doesn't make sense" but you haven't demonstrate how. You've just asserted it.

S yeah, if you want more explanation I'm glad to go over it again, but it ain't nonsensical unless you demonstrate it as such.

And you are right one franchise SHOULDN'T affect the other ... and yet it does. At least it does in the eyes of those who are holding the reins. And THAT'S the point. The sales figures of one WILL affect their stance towards the next one, that is basic business and marketing. It's part of the very metric publishers use to determine how many physical copies to order from the plants. Or to put it another way, it was how many copies of the magazine I used to write for would be ordered, based NOT only on that individual PS mags sales, but also OTHER magazines in their repertoire.

[Zenith]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από crunchyfrog:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Zenith:

But, like I said, one franchise shouldn't affect the other. That's why I pointed out your argument doesn't make sense while talking about there's not being a port for CTR: NF. Spyro's sales wouldn't impact the sales on Crash's franchise, since they're different. You know... Not the same. That's why I pointed that out.

You know: DISCUSSION. You make an argument that doesn't make sense, I point that out. Simple, right? As much as you're free to deviate from the topic, I am free to explain why it doens't make sense. Like I explained thousands of times.

Ah now there's your mistake then.

I in NO WAY referred to Crash Bandicoot like that. I pointed out Spyro ONLY. THe user I was responding to made the point about SPyro AND Crash, but I ONLY addressed Spyro because I was more familiar with it.

And you can freely say "your argument doesn't make sense" but you haven't demonstrate how. You've just asserted it.

S yeah, if you want more explanation I'm glad to go over it again, but it ain't nonsensical unless you demonstrate it as such.

And you are right one franchise SHOULDN'T affect the other ... and yet it does. At least it does in the eyes of those who are holding the reins. And THAT'S the point. The sales figures of one WILL affect their stance towards the next one, that is basic business and marketing. It's part of the very metric publishers use to determine how many physical copies to order from the plants. Or to put it another way, it was how many copies of the magazine I used to write for would be ordered, based NOT only on that individual PS mags sales, but also OTHER magazines in their repertoire.

Yes, you pointed out Spyro ONLY. That's my point, it doesn't make sense, and I'm gonna explain it right now.

When a developer is handling more than 1 franchise, and one of them does bad, it's better to stop that single production (not both, obviously), or put less effort on the franchise that is doing badly, instead of stop producing both (that I already explained why, I'm not repeating it here, reread my previous comments if you have to). That's basic economy. You put your money and effort on what's worth, In that case, we're talking about Crash. If Spyro really is going bad because of what you said, this shouldn't affect Crash at all. It affects the Spyro franchise ONLY. Producers would get that little amount of money Spyro did with sales, stop its producing and development, to focus solely on Crash, to make it even better to get even more sales and make more profit out of it, at a point it would rather be better to focus only on Crash, than administrating both franchises (Crash and Spyro) at the same time. Crash would make more money, than Crash and Spyro together. Focusing on a single franchise may be worth and could make even more profit than focusing on 2 franchises at the same time. The amount of money and attention has to be divided between 2 franchises, and you have to put way more energy and money in developing both. Focusing on only a single franchise doesn't do that. You can keep your focus and put all your money at it, to make the best game possible with the current budget.

If BOTH franchises (Crash and Spyro) does bad, like I already stated and apparently you didn't read, as usual, tbh, it means there's a problem with the developer. It means it is not a problem of the franchises in itself, but with something surronding the marketing, development, low budget or whatever other reason, because one thing (developer) is affecting multiple things (franchises) at the time. Using logic, it means it is a problem with the developer, not a problem with a single franchise.

Like I said, one should NOT affect the other. If you were talking about BOTH franchises (Crash and Spyro) being affected AT THE SAME TIME, THEN your argument would make some sense, and all of this discussion wouldn't happen at all. That's my problem with your argument. You're talking about SPYRO ONLY. See how you don't understand a single ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ argument that I made? Since the beginning I was talking about that, and until now you didn't notice, after days of pointless discussions because you can't read, or are reading and is lying about not understanding it on purpose. I really would like to think it's the first option. I hope you are not that kind of toxic person.

Now, do you understand why one franchise shouldn't affect the other? Or do I have to explain it again in another way?

[crunchyfrog]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Zenith:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από crunchyfrog:

Ah now there's your mistake then.

I in NO WAY referred to Crash Bandicoot like that. I pointed out Spyro ONLY. THe user I was responding to made the point about SPyro AND Crash, but I ONLY addressed Spyro because I was more familiar with it.

And you can freely say "your argument doesn't make sense" but you haven't demonstrate how. You've just asserted it.

S yeah, if you want more explanation I'm glad to go over it again, but it ain't nonsensical unless you demonstrate it as such.

And you are right one franchise SHOULDN'T affect the other ... and yet it does. At least it does in the eyes of those who are holding the reins. And THAT'S the point. The sales figures of one WILL affect their stance towards the next one, that is basic business and marketing. It's part of the very metric publishers use to determine how many physical copies to order from the plants. Or to put it another way, it was how many copies of the magazine I used to write for would be ordered, based NOT only on that individual PS mags sales, but also OTHER magazines in their repertoire.

Yes, you pointed out Spyro ONLY. That's my point, it doesn't make sense, and I'm gonna explain it right now.

When a developer is handling more than 1 franchise, and one of them does bad, it's better to stop that single production (not both, obviously), or put less effort on the franchise that is doing badly, instead of stop producing both (that I already explained why, I'm not repeating it here, reread my previous comments if you have to). That's basic economy. You put your money and effort on what's worth, In that case, we're talking about Crash. If Spyro really is going bad because of what you said, this shouldn't affect Crash at all. It affects the Spyro franchise ONLY. Producers would get that little amount of money Spyro did with sales, stop its producing and development, to focus solely on Crash, to make it even better to get even more sales and make more profit out of it, at a point it would rather be better to focus only on Crash, than administrating both franchises (Crash and Spyro) at the same time. Crash would make more money, than Crash and Spyro together. Focusing on a single franchise may be worth and could make even more profit than focusing on 2 franchises at the same time. The amount of money and attention has to be divided between 2 franchises, and you have to put way more energy and money in developing both. Focusing on only a single franchise doesn't do that. You can keep your focus and put all your money at it, to make the best game possible with the current budget.

If BOTH franchises (Crash and Spyro) does bad, like I already stated and apparently you didn't read, as usual, tbh, it means there's a problem with the developer. It means it is not a problem of the franchises in itself, but with something surronding the marketing, development, low budget or whatever other reason, because one thing (developer) is affecting multiple things (franchises) at the time. Using logic, it means it is a problem with the developer, not a problem with a single franchise.

Like I said, one should NOT affect the other. If you were talking about BOTH franchises (Crash and Spyro) being affected AT THE SAME TIME, THEN your argument would make some sense, and all of this discussion wouldn't happen at all. That's my problem with your argument. You're talking about SPYRO ONLY. See how you don't understand a single ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ argument that I made? Since the beginning I was talking about that, and until now you didn't notice, after days of pointless discussions because you can't read, or are reading and is lying about not understanding it on purpose. I really would like to think it's the first option. I hope you are not that kind of toxic person.

Now, do you understand why one franchise shouldn't affect the other? Or do I have to explain it again in another way?

Nice assertion, Now demonstrate that with evidence.

Show me that one franchise's sales don't affect a publishers decision on another similar one.

THat's quite an extraordinary claim, and therefore requires extraordinary evidence. So have at it. If I'm wrong I'll happily admit you're correct.

But here's the kicker. Even if I'm wrong, it still made sense. It's just wrong - you clearly understood the premise.

[MegasMatey]

I'm confused, crash and spyro selling poorly? Yeah, selling anywhere from 200k to 500k for both spyro and crash for both of those games. Go on and explain how that's bad. (Information on these numbers were from SteamSpy)

[crunchyfrog]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από megas:

I'm confused, crash and spyro selling poorly? Yeah, selling anywhere from 200k to 500k for both spyro and crash for both of those games. Go on and explain how that's bad. (Information on these numbers were from SteamSpy)

No not selling POORLY. I suggest you go back and read what I wrote (poor choice of words on my part here as I was trying to summarize what I'd said earlier).

The claim was about sales of Crash affecting Activision's decision on whether to go forward with future things like Spyro, and adjusting their budgeting accordingly.

[Zenith]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από crunchyfrog:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Zenith:

Yes, you pointed out Spyro ONLY. That's my point, it doesn't make sense, and I'm gonna explain it right now.

When a developer is handling more than 1 franchise, and one of them does bad, it's better to stop that single production (not both, obviously), or put less effort on the franchise that is doing badly, instead of stop producing both (that I already explained why, I'm not repeating it here, reread my previous comments if you have to). That's basic economy. You put your money and effort on what's worth, In that case, we're talking about Crash. If Spyro really is going bad because of what you said, this shouldn't affect Crash at all. It affects the Spyro franchise ONLY. Producers would get that little amount of money Spyro did with sales, stop its producing and development, to focus solely on Crash, to make it even better to get even more sales and make more profit out of it, at a point it would rather be better to focus only on Crash, than administrating both franchises (Crash and Spyro) at the same time. Crash would make more money, than Crash and Spyro together. Focusing on a single franchise may be worth and could make even more profit than focusing on 2 franchises at the same time. The amount of money and attention has to be divided between 2 franchises, and you have to put way more energy and money in developing both. Focusing on only a single franchise doesn't do that. You can keep your focus and put all your money at it, to make the best game possible with the current budget.

If BOTH franchises (Crash and Spyro) does bad, like I already stated and apparently you didn't read, as usual, tbh, it means there's a problem with the developer. It means it is not a problem of the franchises in itself, but with something surronding the marketing, development, low budget or whatever other reason, because one thing (developer) is affecting multiple things (franchises) at the time. Using logic, it means it is a problem with the developer, not a problem with a single franchise.

Like I said, one should NOT affect the other. If you were talking about BOTH franchises (Crash and Spyro) being affected AT THE SAME TIME, THEN your argument would make some sense, and all of this discussion wouldn't happen at all. That's my problem with your argument. You're talking about SPYRO ONLY. See how you don't understand a single ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ argument that I made? Since the beginning I was talking about that, and until now you didn't notice, after days of pointless discussions because you can't read, or are reading and is lying about not understanding it on purpose. I really would like to think it's the first option. I hope you are not that kind of toxic person.

Now, do you understand why one franchise shouldn't affect the other? Or do I have to explain it again in another way?

Nice assertion, Now demonstrate that with evidence.

Show me that one franchise's sales don't affect a publishers decision on another similar one.

THat's quite an extraordinary claim, and therefore requires extraordinary evidence. So have at it. If I'm wrong I'll happily admit you're correct.

But here's the kicker. Even if I'm wrong, it still made sense. It's just wrong - you clearly understood the premise.

Why the ♥♥♥♥ do I have to "send proof" if I'm analyzing something economically and logically?

But ok, if you want it, let's talk about Activision and Tony Hawk. Once the game started to sell poorly, Activision focused on CoD, for example. Tony Hawk almost died because of it, Proof of that, is that they are now remastering old titles to try and see if they can revive this franchise, to see if it's worth continuing, or if Tony Hawk's franchise should just have a horrible death with bad games since Tony Hawk's Pro Skater (PS1 era).

Even with Tony Hawk's franchise going downhill, Activision was still focusing on CoD and earning lots of money from it, because the game got really popular back in the day. Now CoD is not that popular anymore, but it's still a strong name among FPS genre. But, like I said, they stopped with one franchise to focus on another one. Here is your evidence that you are seeking for.

And no, I still don't get why Spyro would affect Crash's sales, even if I'm incorrect about what I said up here in this post.