With the excemption of the Grand Thief Auto 1 and 2 and expantion pack that where all PC in there making.

--- to get back to your point earleir thought, GTA is a good example to back up what you say about Microsoft in that there 50 million dollar deal with Rockstar before the game has even ship for exculisve DLC other than just keeping it off other console (PS3).

Rockstar or Take Two know they make more money if the game is on all consoles/system but Microsoft can lure them to add value to the Microsoft system Xbox360 cos they can.

If you want say that GTA3 would have been better if it was made for (or as you alway say SKU) PC then yes, I'd agree, but what is the chance that if it was made for the PC and was even better, it still may have only made lest money therefore Rockstar would have seen it as a bigger risk and spent less on it development there by it suffering and not coming up to the standrad that it did. - Sorry worded poorly, not my strong point, hope you get the drift thought.

I don't really disagree with you on any particular point. GTA3 wouldn't have been as big of a success if it was a PC-exclusive. What I said before was that the success of GTA3 didn't really have a big impact on PC gaming. It didn't convert any PC-centric genres into console genres like Halo did.

You don't seem to be adapting to the times there geezer, the Wii and the lightgun especially are old technology, we are speaking about new incarnations with true motion mapping instead of waggle presets or IR trickery.

What I saw in the Sony and Natal demos didn't really seem more precise than lightguns or the Wiimote. In case you missed the links, I pointed out the particularly memorable parts where the lack of speed and precision were all too obvious. The guy in the Sony demo had trouble hitting slow-moving and static objects while standing still himself. You keep praising the demos but all I saw some guy fumbling with jittery and inaccurate controls.

You act like the mouse is pixel perfect when a human can just as easily make an imprecise movement with their wrist as their arm.

When your wrist is lying on a flat surface and your hand is holding a mouse, the margin for unwanted movement is greatly decreased. When you're holding a motion controller in the air, the margin for unwanted movement is greatly increased. It's not difficult to understand.

Those videos themselves are spotty on framerate and have noticeable glitches.

Seriously? Now you're blaming video encoding for the poor showcasing of motion controls? The video was fine. It was the actual content of the video that was lacking, mainly the display of motion control "precision." Go back and watch the specific demos I pointed out. Now imagine if those were PC games and the player was using mouse and keyboard. You'd be laughing hysterically at how bad the player was.

No, the point was that you don't look for anything but what you want to see.

Quake is the benchmark for speed and precision in gaming. If motion controls can't measure up to it, then mouse and keyboard are the superior control scheme. And again, I didn't see anything impressive in the motion control demos. I saw a wide range of motions, more than possible with a mouse and keyboard. Unfortunately, a wider range of motion = less precise.

I think it being an RTS made by Ensemble that was heavily promoted by Microsoft had a lot more to do with it given that most Halo fans are probably not big on the RTS genre.

Oh brother, now you're really stretching it. You think any console gamers had even heard of Ensemble before Halo Wars? And ALL console games are heavily promoted, it's not like Halo Wars was unique. Halo Wars sold because it had Halo in the title. If you seriously believe otherwise, you're deluding yourself.

And if there's one thing that can be counted on in life, it's greedy corporations.

Can't disagree with you there.

GTA:SA sold even better than GTA3 on the PS2 - 17 million freaking copies.

What is clear is that, as always, Jerykk is as closed minded as every.

To follow up on my GTA3 point, it was such a mega hit that many development companies would have had there eyes open as to the viablity of consoles.

If you want say that GTA3 would have been better if it was made for (or as you alway say SKU) PC then yes, I'd agree, but what is the chance that if it was made for the PC and was even better, it still may have only made lest money therefore Rockstar would have seen it as a bigger risk and spent less on it development there by it suffering and not coming up to the standrad that it did. - Sorry worded poorly, not my strong point, hope you get the drift thought.

As a PC gamer I have no problem motion controls provided they are accurate. The Sony controller demo went very well and the press is loving up the Natal though I have seen neither in person and will wait to judge them until that time.

Frankly after having my doctor tell me that I am beginning to develop RSI at 26 while in good physical shape despite using an ergonomic keyboard and having excellent posture, I welcome new control methods. As my doctor put it to me, repetitive motions with the hand and wrists are never a good thing for your body except in the case of well, you know.

. I am failing to see the problem, you point where you want to go, assuming the device interprets it correctly how would that be imprecise? It would only be imprecise if you wanted it to be. You act like the mouse is pixel perfect when a human can just as easily make an imprecise movement with their wrist as their arm. People get around this by tweaking their setup, buying a mouse comfortable to them, getting a better surface to use the mouse and so on. These peripherals will be no different, a matter of comfort and customization.

your failure is in your lack of understanding of human anatomy, and how the muscles and tendons in the hand and fingers compare to the ones in the wrist and forearm - and which ones are in motion, suspended or in a state of rest

its understandable tho, you are a dumbass - go ahead and give up on trying to "get it"

And you're sure of this... how? Have you ever played a shooter on the Wii? Hell, have you ever played a lightgun game? In both cases, mouse + keyboard = faster and more precise.

You don't seem to be adapting to the times there geezer, the Wii and the lightgun especially are old technology, we are speaking about new incarnations with true motion mapping instead of waggle presets or IR trickery.

Okay. How would you select and command units using only motion controls? Would you point at the unit, then point to where he should go? I hope you realize how imprecise that is. You should also realize that waving your finger around a screen requires more motion than moving your wrist and clicking.

That's a design issue on a by-game basis, it does not invalidate possibilities for the entire genre just because you have no imagination. No one thought console FPS games were possible before Goldeneye either. And like anything else, I am sure you can tweak the sensitivity settings if you desire. I am failing to see the problem, you point where you want to go, assuming the device interprets it correctly how would that be imprecise? It would only be imprecise if you wanted it to be. You act like the mouse is pixel perfect when a human can just as easily make an imprecise movement with their wrist as their arm. People get around this by tweaking their setup, buying a mouse comfortable to them, getting a better surface to use the mouse and so on. These peripherals will be no different, a matter of comfort and customization.

Except full motion controls requires a greater degree of motion to achieve the same results. It also has a much larger margin for error because the range of possible motion is much larger.

See my example that you ignored, no one said you needed full arm motion to move a unit.

I'm not sure we actually watched the same Natal and Sony demos. In the ones I watched, there was lots of lag and inaccuracy and nothing even remotely close the speed and accuracy of mouse and keyboard.

I think that's simply you looking for what you want to see. You are obviously a very biased person to begin with, I can't imagine showing you any media that would be acceptable. You go looking for things to validate your viewpoint instead of actually wanting to discover any potential truth. I also don't find your sources to be terribly valid, watching poorly encoded youtube uploads tells me volumes about what you know about "lag and inaccuracy" (which is to say you know very little in case I wasn't clear enough). Those videos themselves are spotty on framerate and have noticeable glitches. If I upload a movie of Crysis taken at 320x284 @ 17fps, does that mean Crysis looks horrible too? All PC's must suck surely!

Oh, my bad. I didn't realize that a game's age determined how viable it was as a benchmark for speed and accuracy.

No, the point was that you don't look for anything but what you want to see.

Console RTSes have become more prevalent in recent years, I agree. And most of them have flopped. Halo Wars has done well for a console RTS but I (and pretty much anyone with common sense)

I'm sorry I didn't realize you were more than one person.

knows that having "Halo" in the title had a lot to do with that. You can claim it's inevitable all you want but nothing you've said supports that belief.

I think it being an RTS made by Ensemble that was heavily promoted by Microsoft had a lot more to do with it given that most Halo fans are probably not big on the RTS genre. You talk about common sense but obviously used none when arriving at that conclusion.

In the end I don't really care if you believe it or not, I don't need you to believe that consoles will take your RTS games for it to happen All it will take is Activision-Blizzard getting a little greedier sometime to start the avalanche. And if there's one thing that can be counted on in life, it's greedy corporations. It's inevitable, not even a question of if, it's a question of when.

Anyways this discussion is going nowhere and I have literally nothing left to say on the subjects.

Sorry chuckles I'm pretty sure I could point at you in an FPS game just as accurately as I could move my mouse to you.

And you're sure of this... how? Have you ever played a shooter on the Wii? Hell, have you ever played a lightgun game? In both cases, mouse + keyboard = faster and more precise.

I don't recall anyone saying you needed to move your entire arm in a sweeping motion just to move a unit.

Okay. How would you select and command units using only motion controls? Would you point at the unit, then point to where he should go? I hope you realize how imprecise that is. You should also realize that waving your finger around a screen requires more motion than moving your wrist and clicking.

With motion, your body sends a signal to your arm, the device you're using interprets the data and feeds it to the operating system which in turn feeds it back out.

Except full motion controls requires a greater degree of motion to achieve the same results. It also has a much larger margin for error because the range of possible motion is much larger.

No, that's FPS. Motion is more than fast enough with these new technologies for both genres anyways.

I'm not sure we actually watched the same Natal and Sony demos. In the ones I watched, there was lots of lag and inaccuracy and nothing even remotely close the speed and accuracy of mouse and keyboard.

For reference, here's what I watched:

Sony demo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiX-26VL4bM

Tennis ball demo - 1:40
RTS demo - 6:36
FPS demo - 3:46
Archery demo - 9:35
Ninja star demo - 8:35

Yeah, look at all that speed and precision...

Natal demo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GH_gDreIdcM
(the whole thing is bad)

They already did but you weren't watching apparently since it wasn't Quake 3, a 10 year old FPS title

Oh, my bad. I didn't realize that a game's age determined how viable it was as a benchmark for speed and accuracy.

Sony's demo had accurate and fast sword fighting, I'm pretty sure they can swing an FPS chuckles.

Uh, in the demo I saw, the player couldn't even hit a tennis ball. Maybe we're watching different demos? Please link me to whatever you saw.

Alright, the RTS genre traditionally is poorly sold on the consoles, 2+mil is a runaway success given the size of the target market for it.

Again, where are you getting this 2+ million from? I saw 639K on the March NPD. Halo Wars didn't even show up on the April NPD and the May NPD isn't out yet.

Console RTS will just become more prevalent as control schema advance, much to your dismay it seems given your ridiculous opposition.

Console RTSes have become more prevalent in recent years, I agree. And most of them have flopped. Halo Wars has done well for a console RTS but I (and pretty much anyone with common sense) knows that having "Halo" in the title had a lot to do with that. You can claim it's inevitable all you want but nothing you've said supports that belief.

This comment was edited on Jun 10, 2009, 15:44.

Hold your hand out. Notice how it shakes ever so slightly? You can stop it from making big movement but the small movements are out of your control.

Hold your hand out. Notice how you can move it side to side and make it stop on a dime? To make precise movements, your muscle tension increases and fine motor control is definitely not "out of your control". Are you a chimp? I ask because chimps lack fine motor control in some aspects. Your argument seems to be "GAMING IS PRECISE!!!!" and then using some miniscule amount of unsteadiness inherent in the hand as a crutch to support that. Sorry chuckles I'm pretty sure I could point at you in an FPS game just as accurately as I could move my mouse to you. The only question remains if the technology is there yet and in two cases, it now is.

The point is to reduce the amount of movement you have to do to perform any given action.

I don't recall anyone saying you needed to move your entire arm in a sweeping motion just to move a unit. Why would you assume that? You think companies didn't anticipate people potentially getting tired of long and complex motions, given that there are many out of shape gamers out there?

The point is to reduce the amount of movement you have to do to perform any given action. With mouse and keyboard, movement is limited to your fingers and wrists.

Your brain sends a signal to your arm/hand, your hand moves the mouse, the mouse sends a signal to the motherboard which directs the input, your operating system interprets it and magically things move on screen. With motion, your body sends a signal to your arm, the device you're using interprets the data and feeds it to the operating system which in turn feeds it back out. Sounds about the same to me.

Except games (particularly RTS) aren't designed for that kind of motion. They are designed around speed and precision.

No, that's FPS. Motion is more than fast enough with these new technologies for both genres anyways.

Again, until somebody can demo motion controls with Q3 and match the speed and precision capable with mouse and keyboard, I'm not interested.

They already did but you weren't watching apparently since it wasn't Quake 3, a 10 year old FPS title Sony's demo had accurate and fast sword fighting, I'm pretty sure they can swing an FPS chuckles. Also I find it hilarious you're like "WAKE ME UP WHEN THEY GOT SOMETHIN" when this whole show was about demonstrating the technology and by all accounts in the press who observed them both first hand, they did a wonderful job. But hey, I guess the press is paid off or something right? You aren't even giving them a chance to like you know, make the fucking games before you dismiss it.

Apparently you didn't actually look at any of the numbers I showed you. From the numbers I've seen, it looks like it's sold a million at most and that sales aren't going to accelerate in the future. In today's market, a million isn't all that much and the RTS genre is still more profitable on the PC. When Halo Wars sells a few more million, lemme know. Until then, Halo Wars isn't going to change a thing.

You going to make me repeat myself? Alright, the RTS genre traditionally is poorly sold on the consoles, 2+mil is a runaway success given the size of the target market for it. Console RTS will just become more prevalent as control schema advance, much to your dismay it seems given your ridiculous opposition. I didn't see a final sales total by the way, just a bunch of rankings.

That's ok, you don't need to believe it will happen. You probably didn't think it would happen with FPS games either. The day is coming whether you like it or not

This comment was edited on Jun 10, 2009, 12:43.

You use human movements to move the mouse around, cutting out the middle man seems decidely faster to me.

The point is to reduce the amount of movement you have to do to perform any given action. With mouse and keyboard, movement is limited to your fingers and wrists. Keyboard provides digital input which is as precise as you can get. There are no variations of inpout, simply on and off. If I pust "A" in an FPS, I'll strafe left with the exact same acceleration, speed and direction every time. With full motion controls, your entire body is used for movement which is slower and less precise. Based on the E3 demos for Natal and Sony's new motion control, it's pretty obvious that speed and accuracy are not their strengths. Smooth, flowing motions, sure. Except games (particularly RTS) aren't designed for that kind of motion. They are designed around speed and precision.

That's a pretty weak argument. Unless you happen to have some limb deformity it is quite easy to stop your body from moving, about as easy as stopping to move the mouse.

Hold your hand out. Notice how it shakes ever so slightly? You can stop it from making big movement but the small movements are out of your control. Conversely, I can stop my mouse completely from moving. The ability to stop exactly when, where and for how long you want is a fundamental part of accuracy.

I am very excited about the implications for all of the platforms, you just seem to be interested in crapping on what you deem to be a console technology.

I don't think I ever deemed it "console technology." It doesn't really matter what platform it's for. Motion controls are inherently slow and inaccurate. The problem isn't with the technology, it's with the people using it. Traditional control schemes minimize the range of input that players can provide, thereby increasing the speed and accuracy of the input they do provide.

Again, until somebody can demo motion controls with Q3 and match the speed and precision capable with mouse and keyboard, I'm not interested.

It being an RTS on a console, it's already a runaway success story. It

Apparently you didn't actually look at any of the numbers I showed you. From the numbers I've seen, it looks like it's sold a million at most and that sales aren't going to accelerate in the future. In today's market, a million isn't all that much and the RTS genre is still more profitable on the PC. When Halo Wars sells a few more million, lemme know. Until then, Halo Wars isn't going to change a thing.

I'm not really interested in specs. I want actual results. Motion controls are inherently imprecise because they are purely analog. Mice are analog too but to a far more limited extent. I can stop my mouse completely. I can't completely stop my body from moving. Mice are also used on a flat, stable surface, reducing the potential for unwanted movement. Finally, human movements are actually very clunky and slow. Mouse and keyboard minimize the amount of movement you have to do to overcome this problem.

You use human movements to move the mouse around, cutting out the middle man seems decidely faster to me. I think motion controls are very promising on the PC. You can't stop your body from moving? That's a pretty weak argument. Unless you happen to have some limb deformity it is quite easy to stop your body from moving, about as easy as stopping to move the mouse. The technology is here and real, the results were presented at E3. I am very excited about the implications for all of the platforms, you just seem to be interested in crapping on what you deem to be a console technology. Fair enough but don't confuse yourself into thinking you're objective or informed about the subject.

At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if Halo Wars has yet to hit 2 million. If it doesn't show up on the May charts, I think it's safe to say that it won't. All signs are suggesting that Halo Wars won't even come close to the success of its shooter brethren.

It being an RTS on a console, it's already a runaway success story. It's a developing market, not an established one like shooters. I figured this would be common sense.

This comment was edited on Jun 10, 2009, 09:06.

French isn't my native language. Up until age 14 I still called Home Depot... Home De-pot. Anyhow back on point, is Peter's last name pronounced moly nukes, moo lee nox, or what?

Halo Wars is really the first console RTS to actually nail down a decent control scheme implementation.

Decent? By what standards? From what I've read, BFME2, C&C3 and Red Alert 3 had decent control schemes for a gamepad. Halo Wars' seems pretty much the same.

You claim Halo was the reason FPS on consoles became huge, now Halo couldn't do the same for RTS? You sure do seem to contradict yourself a lot.

I'm not saying it couldn't, I'm saying it probably won't. Firstly, Halo was a new IP. It was a smash hit without relying on an established name which can't really be said for Halo Wars. Even if it ends up selling more than Halo did, its name alone will make publishers skeptical as to the reasons for its success. Secondly, I still haven't seen any official sales numbers for Halo Wars up to this point. I know that Halo sold 5 million and Halo 2 sold 8 million. Thus far, I only know that Halo Wars has sold 1 million.

Edit: Alright, I did some more research. On March 19th, Microsoft announced that Halo Wars had sold more than 1 million worldwide (http://news.vgchartz.com/news.php?id=3189). Strangely, the March NPD sales charts (http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/NPD_March_2009) show only 639K for the game, which means that either at least half the of sales must have been outside the U.S or Microsoft was actually talking about units shipped, not units sold. I'm not sure where to find charts for European sales so I can't really confirm.

In April, Halo Wars doesn't even show up on the NPDs (http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/NPD_April_2009). The lowest-selling game in the top 10 sold 91K and Halo Wars wasn't even in the top 20. May charts have yet to be released but I'm guessing Halo Wars won't be on there either. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if Halo Wars has yet to hit 2 million. If it doesn't show up on the May charts, I think it's safe to say that it won't. All signs are suggesting that Halo Wars won't even come close to the success of its shooter brethren.

Edit 2: Okay, I found some UK charts (http://www.chart-track.co.uk/index.jsp?c=p/software/uk/archive/index_test.jsp&ct=110016&arch=t ). No specific numbers but it shows the top 40 full-price games for every week.

February 28th: 2nd place.
March 7th: 5th place.
March 14th: 9th place.
March 21st: 16th place.
March 28th: 21st place.
April 4th: 28th place.
April 11th: Not on chart.
April 18th: Not on chart.
April 25th: 36th place.
May 2nd: 20th place.
May 9th: 16th place.
May 16th: 28th place.
May 23rd: 35th place.
May 30th: 26th place.
June 6th: 30th place.

Despite dropping off in April, it looks like Halo Wars is hanging on to the top 40 UK charts. Of course, I have no idea how many units it's actually selling. Looking at the other games on the lists, I'm guessing that anything outside of the top 10 probably isn't selling too much.

Uh yeah, I guess you missed the memo but Sony's controller is 1:1 mapping and the specs on Natal say it is pretty damned close.

I'm not really interested in specs. I want actual results. Motion controls are inherently imprecise because they are purely analog. Mice are analog too but to a far more limited extent. I can stop my mouse completely. I can't completely stop my body from moving. Mice are also used on a flat, stable surface, reducing the potential for unwanted movement. Finally, human movements are actually very clunky and slow. Mouse and keyboard minimize the amount of movement you have to do to overcome this problem.

I think you're mistaking smooth and steady movement for quick and precise movement. They are exact opposites. When people can do stuff like this with motion controls, I'll be interested: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPfaQJuWGvU

Are you seriously going to sit there and argue that moving a unit across the screen with your body is somehow less speedier or efficient than finding it with your mouse, selecting it, moving it with the mouse?

The movements you'd make with your body would take longer than the movements you'd make with your mouse. Also, I use hotkeys to select units.

This comment was edited on Jun 10, 2009, 01:09.

All of this RTS genre wars aside, I find the technology behind motion mapping and interpolation very interesting and promising for all platforms. I think the PC will make better use out of it as it has all of the horsepower required to do faster processing of motions and thus reduce delay. I believe Mad Catz already announced something that works for the PC and the 360 by the way.

Are there any current sales figures for Halo Wars? I read somewhere that was it was predicted to reach 2-3 million sales but I haven't actually seen any numbers confirming that.

In any case, I don't think Halo Wars, despite being the best-selling console RTS ever, is enough to turn strategy into a console genre. If you took the "Halo" out of "Halo Wars," it would have flopped like every other console RTS and publishers know this which is why we aren't seeing the market being flooded by console RTSes.

Nah you're wrong. Halo Wars is really the first console RTS to actually nail down a decent control scheme implementation. The advent of things like Natal and the Sony motion controller will make the lack of mouse problem a thing of the past. Controllers have enough buttons these days to do 1-5 control group hotkeys I would imagine. All in all there is nothing stopping console RTS from becoming a reality now except maybe system specs. Google Halo Wars sales figures or just add 1mil + 3 months of their NPD data. You claim Halo was the reason FPS on consoles became huge, now Halo couldn't do the same for RTS? You sure do seem to contradict yourself a lot.

Bwahaha, right. Because motion controls have always been so precise and reliable. Motion controls are a gimmick and will only ever appeal to casual/non-gamers who don't care about speed or accuracy. Speed and accuracy are both essential to strategy games so I don't foresee motion controls doing too well with that genre.

Uh yeah, I guess you missed the memo but Sony's controller is 1:1 mapping and the specs on Natal say it is pretty damned close. Laugh all you want but we're moving past the days of the shitty Wii-mote. I can't imagine anything more accurate than your own motion, not to mention as fast or faster than moving a mouse and the benefit of being as precise.

Are you seriously going to sit there and argue that moving a unit across the screen with your body is somehow less speedier or efficient than finding it with your mouse, selecting it, moving it with the mouse? At worst with 1:1 mapping they would be equal, at best you would be faster with your arm alone. Something small, probably on the order of milliseconds sure but that's not really the point, the point is that it's not a clunky analog stick, it's an actual mouse competitor. I would think you be welcoming this sort of thing as it's the only type of control scheme that is potentially better than a mouse and there's no reason the PC can't have it too.

Are there any current sales figures for Halo Wars? I read somewhere that was it was predicted to reach 2-3 million sales but I haven't actually seen any numbers confirming that.

In any case, I don't think Halo Wars, despite being the best-selling console RTS ever, is enough to turn strategy into a console genre. If you took the "Halo" out of "Halo Wars," it would have flopped like every other console RTS and publishers know this which is why we aren't seeing the market being flooded by console RTSes.

I don't know much about the ins and outs of the videogame business, but I know enough about business in general to say pretty comfortably that if your business is set in such a way that selling a million units of your product does not net you a very handsome profit, then your business is based upon such idiocy as to preclude its continued operation.

Sadly, that's the way the games industry works these days. Most big-budget games need at least a million sales just to break even.

1 million units is more than enough for publishers to take a plunge, I have no clue what universe you're from where every game needs to sell 5million copies to break even but it's not this one.

Break even? Publishers don't want to break even, they want to make huge profit. That's the goal of all business. Remember how disappointed Eidos was that Tomb Raider: Underworld didn't sell 3 million? Remember how disappointed Crytek was that Crysis only sold a million? Prince of Persia, Mirror's Edge and Dead Space are generally considered to have disappointing sales even though they all sold over a million each. If you read any post-mortems, interviews or press releases, you'll see a recurring trend of publishers being disappointed with 1 million sales. When marketing alone costs $20-30 million, 1 million sales just isn't that impressive, especially when you have games surpassing 10 million sales.

Stuff like Natal or the Sony motion controller could even turn out to be a superior control interface to the mouse for the RTS genre.

Bwahaha, right. Because motion controls have always been so precise and reliable. Motion controls are a gimmick and will only ever appeal to casual/non-gamers who don't care about speed or accuracy. Speed and accuracy are both essential to strategy games so I don't foresee motion controls doing too well with that genre.

This comment was edited on Jun 9, 2009, 15:33.

I doubt Ensemble had 400 people working on Halo Wars, pretty sure they had less than 100 people. I was wrong on Halo Wars, it's far more than a million. The million figure was it's first month's sales.

Sadly plenty of games don't break even at a million. The Assassain's Creed 2 team has topped over 400 people, with at least 200 working regularly on it. I don't even want to think about how much that game will need in order to break even.

This is why licensing an engine can be a very good thing - rather than spend six months doing the engine and tools, without any "real" work going into content, just license an engine and be done with it. People can create content while your coders play with the source to modify it as needed.

One million is still a magic number, though.

I don't know much about the ins and outs of the videogame business, but I know enough about business in general to say pretty comfortably that if your business is set in such a way that selling a million units of your product does not net you a very handsome profit, then your business is based upon such idiocy as to preclude its continued operation.