• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

ggx2ac

Sales Heaven or Sales Hell?
Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,504
Important note: "Late Port" in this sense is a game ported to another platform with the same content as the platforms it originally released on.

Persona 4 Golden on PS Vita and Dragon Quest XI S on Switch are not late ports due to added content.

On the other hand, Persona 4 Golden on Steam and DQXIS on PC/XB1/PS4 are late ports.

___________

Just as the thread title says, there's still this misconception going on ever since publishers expanded the platforms they release games on, most notably Japanese publishers putting their games on Steam.

So once some game you like which released on PS4 (e.g. Monster Hunter World) gets ported to Steam you exclaim, "I'm going to double dip!"

Then for some reason you've conflated your buying habits with how publishers put out late ports which gave birth to this idea that publishers make late ports to make you buy the same game again on another platform.

You are mistaken, publishers do not make late ports to get you to buy the same game again on another platform in the same generation of consoles and PC.

Publishers make late ports in the hopes of finding a new audience to expand to so that they can make more sales.

Double Dipping is not the intended effect, for publishers to even find out if a person who bought their late port is a Double Dipper, they would need to send out surveys to get that information. Unfortunately, they have to do a lot more work by obtaining information about your gender, age, gaming habits, what consoles you own, etc to set up their population and do random sampling from it to ensure that a random sample actually reflects the larger population. If the sample isn't representative of the population then it will end up with biased results.

So if your first response to this thread is to make a thread titled "Do you double dip?" which asks people to enter the poll giving a yes or no answer with the hopes of getting a yes majority so that you can claim that "X% of people Double Dip therefore, Double Dipping is a reason why publishers make late ports" then all you will end up with is biased results because you cannot claim that such results are representative of the general population.

So when publishers make a late port of a game to sell on a different platform, their intention is to find a new audience to sell to. If the late port is successful, then they will continue to support the platform as most Japanese publishers have with regards to Steam. On the other hand if the publisher does not do their best to cater to the new audience they're looking for on a different platform then the sales made from that late port will be below expectations.

Publishers cannot just treat Switch, PlayStation/Xbox and PC as exactly the same thing when bringing a game to each of these platforms. Every consumer on these platforms have different preferences, for example if your late PC port does not have customisable graphics and performance settings to allow a PC user to get the most of what they want out of a PC game then it is unlikely that they will be satisfied enough to buy your game. If you put out a late Switch port of a shooter that does not have gyro controls or has poor resolution in handheld mode then a Switch user is unlikely to buy it.

Like with targeting a new audience the publisher needs to understand the audience they are targeting because having a popular IP or a AAA game can only get you so far with little effort especially if your late port is a full priced game.

The point is, these are things that publishers have to look for when finding a new audience. They do not make late ports with the hopes that all console owners suddenly buy the same game on PC or on Switch, it is your mistaken assumption because of your preferred gaming and buying habits when a late port is brought to another platform.
 

Deleted member 63122

User requested account closure
Banned
Jan 16, 2020
9,071
It's all based on the extra stuff and accessibility of the console or platform it's going to be ported with. A game going to PS4 to PC and/or Switch I can see double dipping because of the mods and higher performance on PC and the portability or that some games art styles and gameplay are just perfect for Switch. Now a game going from PS4 to Xbox 1 or vice versa, I can't see double dipping, unless that person it's really a fan or if there's some exclusive content on the new console.
 

SteveWinwood

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,694
USA USA USA
i figured this would have some data or an industry interview or something

but nope its just a random poster

i bow to your great insight that has past everyone else by

you didnt even attempt to provide any evidence
 

Admiral Woofington

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
14,892
Nintendo isn't trying to get us to double dip when they don't transfer ports of snes/nes/n64 they released on the eshop in one console into another and make you buy it again when it does. They are exploring new audiences.

They aren't the bad guys. We are. We are for doubting their generosity. My uncle at Nintendo was right.
 
Oct 25, 2017
15,172
Nintendo isn't trying to get us to double dip when they don't transfer ports of snes/nes/n64 they released on the eshop in one console into another and make you buy it again when it does. They are exploring new audiences.

They aren't the bad guys. We are. We are for doubting their generosity. My uncle at Nintendo was right.
Those are not late ports? Those are rereleases.
 

Nanashrew

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,328
Double dipping is not a common practice whatsoever. Anyone who thinks it is needs to get their head out of the enthusiast bubble to look around. Double dipping only ever comes from those with lots of disposable income like collectors and super fans of specific games and series. Double dipping isn't even that common among enthusiasts either. This being an enthusiast forum, you'll find plenty who don't double dip.
 
Me providing data compared to people's anecdotes
OP
OP
ggx2ac

ggx2ac

Sales Heaven or Sales Hell?
Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,504
i figured this would have some data or an industry interview or something

but nope its just a random poster

i bow to your great insight that has past everyone else by

you didnt even attempt to provide any evidence

And yet there are posters on this very forum that claim publishers make late ports to get people to double dip with only anecdotes to "prove it" which is what I am trying to refute.

If you want some evidence, there are plenty of late ports that released on Switch in Japan that we have numbers for since this isn't the first time I had to refute this:

Both quotes are for context:
My guess would be digital and double dipping. A late port probably generates a lot more buzz than a simultaneous release. Gives the big guys the chance to impress twice with the same game. Small guys might be getting technical and marketing support from Sony too.

Double dipping is not a thing that publishers aim for, especially for generating buzz. This sounds like the artificial scarcity ploy all over again.

Are there consumers that double dip on a game? Yes.

Do they make up a significant portion of sales? Definitely not. They're an outlier, they're negligible.

I only have to look at all the late ports that released on Switch and see how most of them barely sold much better LTD than their PS4 counterparts? (All RETAIL sales units below are from: https://sites.google.com/site/gamedatalibrary/games-by-platform/ )

Ys 8: 9.101 units (Switch), 61.538 units (PS4)

God Eater 3: 28.770 units (Switch), 203.554 units (PS4)

Sword Art Online Fatal Bullet: 18.427 units (Switch), 133.108 units (PS4)

Those late ports sure did quite the buzz...

###

Now the first thing I can expect to hear is, "What about Dragon Ball?"

Dragon Ball Xenoverse 2: 181.090 units (Switch), 128.086 units (PS4)

Dragon Ball FighterZ: 92.697 units (Switch), 103.252 units (PS4)

We have one instance of a Switch late port outselling the PS4 initial release. Did a huge portion of people just buy the same game again on Switch? I would say no, I'd say it's more likely that a popular IP helped sell a game well to a new audience regardless of it being a late port and to support that point, I present Dragon Quest Builders 2.

Dragon Quest Builders 2: 275.145 units (Switch), 238.724 units (PS4)

This isn't a late port, both games released simultaneously and they both managed to sell well because it's from a popular IP. If one of them got delayed for the purposes of double dipping and to "generate buzz", then there is no way it would have reached this amount of sales in total because the game released during the holiday season.

Want an example of a late port for a popular IP that didn't sell that great when all it had was higher resolution and better textures?

Monster Hunter XX: 285.310 units (Switch), 1.718.052 units (3DS)

Double dippers definitely didn't make that game sell well.

###

If a publisher wants a late port to sell well then it has to be a popular IP that sells to a wide audience.

A late port can have new exclusive content to help it sell well but, does that really make the game a late port when it has new content? If you think Dragon Quest XI S is a late port then you'd have to put Persona 5 Royal into the same bracket of late port as well.
 

ScatheZombie

Member
Oct 26, 2017
398
You are mistaken, publishers do not make late ports to get you to buy the same game again on another platform in the same generation of consoles and PC.

Publishers make late ports in the hopes of finding a new audience to expand to so that they can make more sales.

Publishers make late ports to fill out empty/lacking release schedules and quarterly/yearly earnings with low risk, guaranteed income.

And because most studios don't actually make multi-platform titles. The main studio makes the product on one specific platform that they know incredibly well and then other studios quietly handle the other platforms porting/optimization. It's often easier for these other studios to have a finalized version of the product to port and release later than to work on simultaneous release. Especially if/when initial sales on the primary platform can fund the ports to other platforms. Publishers want to minimize risk, maximize returns, stabilize revenue generation, and reduce upfront costs - staggered releases can do all of that.

And that's not even taking into consideration the maze of contract negotiations for things like timed exclusivity, co-marketing, product versioning, DLC bundling, etc.

But yes, for the most part, I've never seen or heard of a publisher actively consider multi-platform release schedules based on the idea of 'double dipping'. The percentage of the market that buys the same product multiple times across different platforms isn't large enough to warrant shifting millions in development and marketing just for them.
 

Deleted member 2620

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,491
publishers factor in a lot of things when making the decision to not release a PC version at the same time as a console version.

i do not believe that they deliberately ignore that there's some small crowd that buys both, even if i don't think that said crowd is the biggest reason behind them shooting for a staggered release schedule
 

MP!

Member
Oct 30, 2017
5,198
Las Vegas
then why did they release p5 one PS4 twice?

They could have released on switch...
clearly they were aiming for the same people to buy the game.
 
OP
OP
ggx2ac

ggx2ac

Sales Heaven or Sales Hell?
Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,504
Publishers make late ports to fill out empty/lacking release schedules and quarterly/yearly earnings with low risk, guaranteed income.

And because most studios don't actually make multi-platform titles. The main studio makes the product on one specific platform that they know incredibly well and then other studios quietly handle the other platforms porting/optimization. It's often easier for these other studios to have a finalized version of the product to port and release later than to work on simultaneous release. Especially if/when initial sales on the primary platform can fund the ports to other platforms. Publishers want to minimize risk, maximize returns, stabilize revenue generation, and reduce upfront costs - staggered releases can do all of that.

And that's not even taking into consideration the maze of contract negotiations for things like timed exclusivity, co-marketing, product versioning, DLC bundling, etc.

But yes, for the most part, I've never seen or heard of a publisher actively consider multi-platform release schedules based on the idea of 'double dipping'. The percentage of the market that buys the same product multiple times across different platforms isn't large enough to warrant shifting millions in development and marketing just for them.

I acknowledge that these are good points and a good post compared to the other posts I've seen in this thread where the other posters that perceive my OP as though I'm attacking their worldview.
 
Last edited:

eraFROMAN

One Winged Slayer
Member
Mar 12, 2019
2,893
It's both, publishers are absolutely aware that people double dip, and will lean into it if they can (no reason not to.) The fact that cross save exists is evidence of that.
 

SteveWinwood

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,694
USA USA USA
And yet there are posters on this very forum that claim publishers make late ports to get people to double dip with only anecdotes to "prove it" which is what I am trying to refute.

If you want some evidence, there are plenty of late ports that released on Switch in Japan that we have numbers for since this isn't the first time I had to refute this:

Both quotes are for context:
I mean I'm pretty sure I would agree with your general thesis here. That double dipping is not a major source of sales on late ports. I'm not sure who would say that. But even if someone thought that you haven't done anything to prove otherwise.

But clearly some of the sales are, and if they weren't expecting it why would they waste time and effort to putting cross saves on the switch version of Divinity 2. It would have been a completely useless feature they wasted a significant amount of man power on then.

I'm not sure how you can extrapolate anything out of that random spattering of sales numbers. Maybe some audiences and games have more double dipping. Maybe some genres or franchises don't sell on switch. I don't know. You don't know. They didn't take surveys. You can make an arguement for almost anything out of those numbers. Different things sell differently it's crazy I know.

I'm sure many companies have done a lot of research on it, but we're never going to see those. The best we could hope for is maybe a slide or a random question from an investor meeting or something.
 
Last edited:

lorddarkflare

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,265
I acknowledge that these are good points and a good post compared to the other posts I've seen in this thread where the other posters that perceive my OP as though I'm attacking their worldview.

Based on the weird attachments people form with games, you very much are.

I happen to generally agree with you though. Ain't nobody spending millions on ports simply on the hope people will re-purchase a game. Hell, not even partly on that.

That said, I don't think it is controversial to say that I think they hope people will double dip and the occasional increased value of late ports point to that a little.
 
OP
OP
ggx2ac

ggx2ac

Sales Heaven or Sales Hell?
Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,504
I mean I'm pretty sure I would agree with your general thesis here. That double dipping is not a major source of sales on late ports. I'm not sure who would say that.

Thread title: Double Dipping is not a thing that Publishers aim for when they make late ports, it's just your gaming/buying habits. That's what I said, not what you said in the bolded.

There have been plenty of times in sales threads where posters will claim that a publisher brings a late port to another platform because of double dippers.

The sales data is the only publicly available evidence to show how this claim doesn't work.

But even if someone thought that you haven't done anything to prove otherwise.

Anecdotes vs evidence. If we want to get more technical then everyone that has claimed publishers make late ports to get people to double dip should actually prove their point since they were the first one to make the claim and yet despite me making a well thought out post to refute this claim by other posters that has been accepted without being challenged is being met with vitriol and something to be easily dismissed as I am some random poster, thanks.

But clearly some of the sales are, and if they weren't expecting it why would they waste time and effort to putting cross saves on the switch version of Divinity 2. It would have been a completely useless feature they wasted a significant amount of man power on then.

Again, you're misrepresenting my argument. Double dipping exists, it doesn't mean that publishers actively aim for it when they make late ports. Considering you cited a claim with Divinity: Original Sin 2 on Switch and cross-saves I had a feeling this wasn't to make double dippers but to allow players who are playing such a long game to be able to fit it within their lifestyles where the double dipping is a side effect and not the intended effect, and hey I was right.

Source: https://www.pcgamesn.com/divinity-original-sin-2/switch-larian-blitworks

So for some context the Switch version was ported by Blitworks which means an outsourced studio did most of the work.

We know that cross-saves is new territory thanks to how platform holders have restricted such a feature for generations that it's only becoming somewhat allowed.

Here are some interesting interview questions I found:

How the idea first came up:
PCGamesN: What was the main reason for going for cross-save? Is this something you'll pursue for all your future games?

Michael Douse: We brainstorm a lot – internally, externally, and we listen to a lot of feedback. [Cross-save] came up in one such brainstorm with Nintendo, and I think – paraphrasing – the conclusions were sort of: "If you'll let us do it, we'll make it work". So we went to work on making it work.

Literally everyone was excited about the idea. Everyone at Nintendo was super into it, and everyone at Valve was into it. And to be clear, the difference between a 'yes' and nothing happening and a 'yes' and something happening is a willingness to put people on it. The fact that Valve had an engineer who worked with us on this, and Nintendo were talking to Valve, and everyone was talking to us was actually quite soul-affirming. Despite being massive enterprises, the whole thing – in how open and willing it was – felt quite indie. You could tell that everyone really cared.

In the following question, you will see here that Michael Douses' vision was to have the game playable in ways that fit your lifestyle, double dipping is not mentioned, so funny enough his lifestyle vision actually fits my thread title while the double dipping sales that occur is a side effect, not the intended effect for why they implemented cross-saves:

Do you think PC and Switch can complement each other as platforms when it comes to something like a CRPG experience?

MD:

...

I can understand why some are sceptical of a CRPG on the Switch, but at the same time, it just works. It's funny because when we released on consoles an influencer rolled into the booth with the understandable and classic "Gamepad? That'll never work!" and within an hour he was like "Oh, this is cool actually". We're seeing the same thing on Switch. The elephant in the room will always be this idea that this type of game should not work on consoles, or on Switch, but we put a lot of effort into making it work.

When it launched, I played 20 hours straight on Switch over the weekend after PAX, darting between my laptop, PC, and Switch. The world is changing, and I cannot envision a future where you're locked down to one place when you're gaming. What we're trying to do is get ready for this shift (note: Stadia), so that when trends change, we don't have to change our content. We want to deliver in-depth, real RPGs essentially forever. I will never buy the idea that our content has to change for any specific platform. The players are there, it's our job to find them. It's our job to give to them, not to take from them.

Again, his vision is reflected regarding lifestyle habits:

We can imagine cross-save being helpful for busy gamers who need more time to get into a big game like DOS2. Is this part of the reason you're porting to Switch? If so, is it backed by any data, or just intuition?

MD:
Anecdotes about flights, mostly. It doesn't take an Excel sheet to understand the world is changing in terms of motion. We're busy. Far too busy. You're probably too busy. Players are too busy. Society asks a lot from us, and increasingly so. I think it's a safe assumption to say 'Hey, people probably wanna take this game with them'. A lot of what we do is intuition, but we do try and be data-driven too.

It differs depending on who you ask. I prefer data to fact-check intuition, rather than data in place of intuition. I have a more reductive view on the CRPG thing. I understand as a quantitative tag that it accurately describes "what you're getting into", but for me it's just an RPG. Basically, if you like RPGs, you'll probably like DOS2. As long as you like turn-based combat. If you don't like turn-based combat, then that's also fine, don't forget you can make love to a sociopathic lizard. Surely you're into that?

Some info here to get us an idea of the work it took it implement cross-saves:
How tricky was it to develop the cross-save functionality from a technical standpoint?

Javier Moya: The Steam API is very clear and easy to understand, so it was relatively easy to create a manager in the game that takes care of all the process (files retrievement, timestamps comparison for detecting conflicts, etc.).

One of the biggest challenges was to make the cross-save as transparent as possible for the players. Also, since the Switch has a limit about how much data the game can store but we didn't want to apply a limit to the cross-save users, so we needed to make some adjusts to how the game handles this. We finally built a system where all save games are treated like local save games and they are downloaded or removed on demand. For example, if all the local slots are being used and any extra slot is needed, the game will automatically remove the oldest synced slot to free up space, so the player is able to surpass the Switch limit by using the Steam cloud as a backup container.

We also had support from Nintendo and Steam, who helped us with any technical problems that we faced (e.g. getting the friendly name feature of the Steam login working on the Switch web-view, or having the savegames synced in all platforms). That was very helpful.

A very interesting question below about the value of cross-saves considering it is only so recent thanks to how long platform holders have restricted such a feature:

Cross-save itself works really well – why is this kind of seamless cross-save still uncommon in games that support it?

MD:
At a guess, it's hard to put a value tag on this feature. These things have to be built, and that costs money. So without fully understanding what you'll gain from it, I can imagine people not being able to budget the feature. It's an extremely lateral process. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a lot of people doing two things now: asking how many people used cross-saves, and asking how it was done. If you've ever worked in development, you'll know how hard it is usually to commit money to a lateral feature, the value of which you cannot quantify. Business doesn't like the unknown. This is a sort of standard platitude that shouldn't exist in games, but it does.

And then finally, if the implementation of cross-saves was to make people Double Dip as the intended effect rather than Michael Douses' vision of having games fit to people's lifestyles where Double Dipping is the side effect, then surely they would have said "Yes, we're bringing cross-saves to PS4 and XB1 because of double dippers!"

Will we see cross-save with the Xbox One or Playstation 4 versions?

MD:
I don't know. To be honest, the cross-save functionality you see on Switch was built from the ground up. There isn't a single tech or process in there that wasn't developed or tweaked for it to work with DOS2. Nintendo had to look at a bunch of stuff, and Valve had to work on a bunch of stuff, as did we. So it's a big freight train to get moving, but when it does get moving it really goes. This isn't a universal system that'll work for everyone. I am extremely humbled it works for us, but we cannot really move on anything unless we have that sort of euphoric "yes" triangulation.

So we have some actual insight from developers for why they decided to implement the things they wanted to do and so far it hasn't gone against my argument that you misrepresented.


I'm not sure how you can extrapolate anything out of that random spattering of sales numbers. Maybe some audiences and games have more double dipping. Maybe some genres or franchises don't sell on switch. I don't know. You don't know. They didn't take surveys. You can make an arguement for almost anything out of those numbers. Different things sell differently it's crazy I know.

It's not that hard, posters claim: " "Publishers make late ports to get people to double dip", so if that was the case there should be evidence of it found from sales data that Publishers go through all this trouble to get people to buy the same game again.

So what are the conditions that are needed? Late ports have to exist and sales data that is publicly available to show it. Switch is the console market leader in Japan having hardware sales that are currently 1.5x higher than on PS4 yet there have been late ports on Switch that performed so terribly that it runs contrary to this idea that "Publishers make late ports to get people to double dip" when I point out that isn't a thing based on these shitty sales numbers. That could give rise to the question that Switch isn't appealing for the games that get late ports to Switch yet we have games from a Popular IP (i.e. Dragonball Z) where there's one instance of a late port outselling a PS4 initial release, surely the late port sold because it found a new audience on Switch and not because all of the PS4 owners of game decided to double dip on Xenoverse 2? The MMO style game that has no cross-save feature. Then finally I needed to show a multiplatform simultaneous release of a big IP to show how publishers would benefit more from doing a simultaneous release of a game than if they released late ports for the purposes of Double Dipping as posters like to claim.

I'm showing data and giving context to the data, you can show other sales data to disprove this rather than dismissing my arguments due to me being some random poster just making up things that have no basis that is somehow on the same level as the people who claimed this crap about double dipping in the first place without any evidence.

I'm sure many companies have done a lot of research on it, but we're never going to see those. The best we could hope for is maybe a slide or a random question from an investor meeting or something.

I'm sure if companies did do research on it we surely would have heard about it on EEDAR (now called NPD Games) since they make and publish surveys related to gaming and companies seek analysts from external companies such as them, but hey, Double Dipping is not something ever discussed outside this forum on a platform that has some legitimacy as you prefer. It's as if it's another piece of made up bullshit with no logical basis that can be added to other bullshit this forum produces like "honeymoon periods" and "artificial scarcity" which is then applied to sales discussions over why something performed the way it did even though it has no logical basis.

But hey, as I'm typing this shit out I can see that this is not the kind of place I can go for some nuanced discussion since I'm just some random poster that if you read this whole post then I don't see why you even bothered.
 

Zedark

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,719
The Netherlands
Thread title: Double Dipping is not a thing that Publishers aim for when they make late ports, it's just your gaming/buying habits. That's what I said, not what you said in the bolded.

There have been plenty of times in sales threads where posters will claim that a publisher brings a late port to another platform because of double dippers.

The sales data is the only publicly available evidence to show how this claim doesn't work.



Anecdotes vs evidence. If we want to get more technical then everyone that has claimed publishers make late ports to get people to double dip should actually prove their point since they were the first one to make the claim and yet despite me making a well thought out post to refute this claim by other posters that has been accepted without being challenged is being met with vitriol and something to be easily dismissed as I am some random poster, thanks.



Again, you're misrepresenting my argument. Double dipping exists, it doesn't mean that publishers actively aim for it when they make late ports. Considering you cited a claim with Divinity: Original Sin 2 on Switch and cross-saves I had a feeling this wasn't to make double dippers but to allow players who are playing such a long game to be able to fit it within their lifestyles where the double dipping is a side effect and not the intended effect, and hey I was right.

Source: https://www.pcgamesn.com/divinity-original-sin-2/switch-larian-blitworks

So for some context the Switch version was ported by Blitworks which means an outsourced studio did most of the work.

We know that cross-saves is new territory thanks to how platform holders have restricted such a feature for generations that it's only becoming somewhat allowed.

Here are some interesting interview questions I found:

How the idea first came up:


In the following question, you will see here that Michael Douses' vision was to have the game playable in ways that fit your lifestyle, double dipping is not mentioned, so funny enough his lifestyle vision actually fits my thread title while the double dipping sales that occur is a side effect, not the intended effect for why they implemented cross-saves:



Again, his vision is reflected regarding lifestyle habits:



Some info here to get us an idea of the work it took it implement cross-saves:


A very interesting question below about the value of cross-saves considering it is only so recent thanks to how long platform holders have restricted such a feature:



And then finally, if the implementation of cross-saves was to make people Double Dip as the intended effect rather than Michael Douses' vision of having games fit to people's lifestyles where Double Dipping is the side effect, then surely they would have said "Yes, we're bringing cross-saves to PS4 and XB1 because of double dippers!"



So we have some actual insight from developers for why they decided to implement the things they wanted to do and so far it hasn't gone against my argument that you misrepresented.




It's not that hard, posters claim: " "Publishers make late ports to get people to double dip", so if that was the case there should be evidence of it found from sales data that Publishers go through all this trouble to get people to buy the same game again.

So what are the conditions that are needed? Late ports have to exist and sales data that is publicly available to show it. Switch is the console market leader in Japan having hardware sales that are currently 1.5x higher than on PS4 yet there have been late ports on Switch that performed so terribly that it runs contrary to this idea that "Publishers make late ports to get people to double dip" when I point out that isn't a thing based on these shitty sales numbers. That could give rise to the question that Switch isn't appealing for the games that get late ports to Switch yet we have games from a Popular IP (i.e. Dragonball Z) where there's one instance of a late port outselling a PS4 initial release, surely the late port sold because it found a new audience on Switch and not because all of the PS4 owners of game decided to double dip on Xenoverse 2? The MMO style game that has no cross-save feature. Then finally I needed to show a multiplatform simultaneous release of a big IP to show how publishers would benefit more from doing a simultaneous release of a game than if they released late ports for the purposes of Double Dipping as posters like to claim.

I'm showing data and giving context to the data, you can show other sales data to disprove this rather than dismissing my arguments due to me being some random poster just making up things that have no basis that is somehow on the same level as the people who claimed this crap about double dipping in the first place without any evidence.



I'm sure if companies did do research on it we surely would have heard about it on EEDAR (now called NPD Games) since they make and publish surveys related to gaming and companies seek analysts from external companies such as them, but hey, Double Dipping is not something ever discussed outside this forum on a platform that has some legitimacy as you prefer. It's as if it's another piece of made up bullshit with no logical basis that can be added to other bullshit this forum produces like "honeymoon periods" and "artificial scarcity" which is then applied to sales discussions over why something performed the way it did even though it has no logical basis.

But hey, as I'm typing this shit out I can see that this is not the kind of place I can go for some nuanced discussion since I'm just some random poster that if you read this whole post then I don't see why you even bothered.
Great post. It's classic inversion of the burden of proof fallacy. The extraordinary claim is that publishers bring a game mostly for double dippers, so the burden of proof should be to show that that is indeed the main motivation behind a port. And I'd hazard a guess the evidence isn't there. Nor does that mean no one double dips, either. But it's not the main motivation for any port.

I think some forum-goers have a blind spot where they reason from the position of a multi-platform owner, and extrapolate said ownership to the wider market. From such a narrow perspective, it makes more sense to think that people either are not interested in a game period or are double-dippers. Reality is that not everyone does, and ports address that widened audience.
 

sredgrin

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
12,276
I think for sure there are SOME that plan around heavy double dipping. But the only ones that are successful either have Rockstar as their name or have a few key feautres like being formerly trapped on a dead platform. I'd wager Persona 4 Steam was heavily bought by double dippers given the price, no longer needed a dated system to play, and the fact any functioning PC could run it.

I do agree though that a lot of the ones people say are oriented around double dipping clearly aren't. There's just not enough success stories for it to be a major strategy.
 

Chamon

Member
Feb 26, 2019
1,221
I have never bought the same game twice and I can't understand why people do it (too much money and too much spare time?).
 

elyetis

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,559
I clearly wouldn't say for sure that for example Red Dead Redemption 2 got a delayed release for the sake of making people double dip, but the fact that they don't communicate about that port until after the game initial release is what seems to target double dipping.
That's different to Monster Hunter World or Death Stranding where we know about the late port before hand. ( which surprised pretty much everyone in the case of DS )
 

Deleted member 15360

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,477
I agree with the OP

No Publishers will aim to release the game for double dipping , they will aim at releasing on acquiring new audiences

Just because a hardcore enthusiast forum double dips that doesn't mean it's a general thing
 

Horned Reaper

Member
Nov 7, 2017
1,560
Maybe I missed it scrolling through, but is there evidence of multiple publishers claiming this or just sales figures to extrapolate what they may have been aiming for?