Originally Posted by mykevermin
And the whole Left 4 Dead - PS3 money going to marketing theory is pretty fascinating, since it relies on the assumption that all PS3 releases are not profitable to publishers.
It's not necessarily a "not profitable" issue but a less profitable scenario where it makes more since on some projects to allocate those funds to advertising, promotions and free DLC to increase the profitability of a larger release demographic.
Whereas L4D has huge draws for the stereotypical 360 gamer (FPS, largely a cooperative /multilayer experience) it seems to make sense (Gabe Newell's and other coders disdain for the PS3 acknowledged, but aside).
The classic example of mitigating loss/ reassigning funds is the movie theater: During the week days you would think it would make more sense to close than run matinees. However, if you consider that the refrigerators are running for the food, the HVAC has to run because it takes to long for them to control the temperature because they have to condition such a huge volume of air, rent is paid opened or closed . . . it makes more since to stay open and lose some money versus stay closed and lose a marked amount more.
I am not saying I endorse this business practice but it is a proven method in certain situations; Add the possibility of milking the deep MS teet for an exclusive bonus (to mitigate dev. cost) and it is even more understandable.