Quote:

part 1 sold more than 200k units because all magazines reported the game extraordinarily sucks and therefore is fun to play...



In my book, if a game is fun to play and people also say it's fun to play, I'd consider such a game as 'good' too. No wonder it sold very well.

Quote:

of course you have to make an extraordinarily bad product. make it, publish it, let them say it is extraordinarily bad and everybody buys it because its extraordinarily bad, nobody will be disappointed or angry at you, they just laugh, but in the meanwhile you make a lot of money and can fund the next project with it.



Nobody buys it just to see how extraordinary bad it is, that's just silly. The publicity might tempt some people into buying it, no doubt, but you're not going to get a lot of money out of bad products. And then I haven't talked about refunds, any girl or guy with a brain that 'accidently' bought your horrible game will without a doubt return it and ask for a refund.

Off course, now it seems to me, you were talking about games that aren't graphically very good or have a huge interesting story, but are still fun to play and often considered as being 'bad' games, right?

Quote:

more money means better quality and so your new game will be much better.



In my experience this totally depends, if money is used to pay higher quality programmers then yes perhaps it will become better, if the money isn't quite used apart from salary for yourself, then chances are the quality level will stay horrible. Not much money can change when you don't use it properly.

Quote:

we offer our clients exclusive coverage with the possibility to distribute the game on their own in the online sector. for that we offer support, eg with DRM, Packaging or presentation.



Nice, what kind of deals can we as developers expect? (it's okey to PM if you like)

Cheers

PHeMoX, Innervision Software (c) 1995-2008

For more info visit: Innervision Software