Er, actually, there's been at least two COD games from Infinity Ward before MW1 and both have delivered similar experiences. People who liked COD1 and COD2 were probably also MW1 customers.
The "what is a successful game?"/"are exclusives worth it?" cost/benefit thread
- Thread starter Laa-Yosh
- Start date
Er, actually, there's been at least two COD games from Infinity Ward before MW1 and both have delivered similar experiences. People who liked COD1 and COD2 were probably also MW1 customers.
They never really planned to make as much money as they've expected from HP.
Blade Runner probably only got greenlit because of two names: Ridley Scott and Harrison Ford. It still bombed at the box office at its release, though.
Actually, by the time HP1 got into the US it was considered to be good enough to pay $100K for the publishing rights in 1997, 4 years before the movie's release. Warner payed 1 million pounds for the rights of the first 4 books in 1998. It was already a phenomenon at that time, hence the movie studio's attention.
Ok look, I hate that we have to keep coming back to this, but in isolation Uncharted 2 is doing well enough that I don't think we need to toss-around 'failure' in there to describe the strategy.
Yes I get it, there are folk around here that want the previous Soothsayers of Uncharted Sales to fess up to the lowered sales vs their proclamations, but does this thread have to be colored through that lens? The game has made money, probably, right? And at ~2.5M in sales three months into launch, I think it'll reach a little higher before everything's said and done. Tracking similarly to Gears of War and Bioshock isn't failure afterall, I don't believe.I personally am not trying to get into an Uncharted 2 discussion when we have just seemingly escaped the Killzone 2 discussion, so...
Anyway I agree (strongly) with some of the prior themes raised: sequels don't get bought because they are the staple of idiot gamers, they get bought because they promise the continuation of a game experience that was considered worthwhile the first time around. So long as that trust in the franchise is not broken, the chances of an individual sticking with it are decent. Also I think when we judge 'popularity,' a lot of it comes down to shared experience. If you and your friends game online, well there's going to be a pull towards your gaming online with them on the same title. If you are at school talking about games, there's going to be a pull to talk about the same game. Same thing could be abstracted to forums. I don't think there is anything wrong with that myself - it is how I can still have moments today speaking to almost anyone in and around my age bracket about the madness of tossing vegetables in Super Mario Bros 2.
And I think with the 360 specifically, perhaps the Live community plays towards the front-loaded nature of the sales - getting online to catch that wave of activity.
Harry Potter was HUGE long before WB picked it for a movie.
As for game franchises, they have to have that one breakout title that resonates with everyone. It usually snowballs from that point and the sequels are massively popular even if they aren't anything special anymore (doesn't stand out from other AAA releases as much as it used to). The fact that Modern Warfare managed to pick up steam even though the previous games were selling decently shows that quality and appeal are more important than marketing at the end of the day.
Trials HD has been ruling on XBLA for the past several months not because it had better marketing campaigns than other games on the service. That's because it resonates great with players and even though other games are really good as well, Trials HD is something special.
Sony's games apparently don't have that kind of appeal and stating that Sony's marketing sucks (it doesn't) or that PS3 owners are idiots won't change that.
As for game franchises, they have to have that one breakout title that resonates with everyone. It usually snowballs from that point and the sequels are massively popular even if they aren't anything special anymore (doesn't stand out from other AAA releases as much as it used to). The fact that Modern Warfare managed to pick up steam even though the previous games were selling decently shows that quality and appeal are more important than marketing at the end of the day.
Trials HD has been ruling on XBLA for the past several months not because it had better marketing campaigns than other games on the service. That's because it resonates great with players and even though other games are really good as well, Trials HD is something special.
Sony's games apparently don't have that kind of appeal and stating that Sony's marketing sucks (it doesn't) or that PS3 owners are idiots won't change that.
OT
If it were truly a phenomenon at the time, I doubt that the publishing and the movies rights would have been acquired for soo cheaply.
Within 3 years, the first book sold 10 million copies which equates to about 1 penny per book to recoup the investment on licensing rights for Scholastic and thats probably around the same rate per ticket sale for Warner.
For the amount of revenue generated by HP, those fees are so cheap they could have given Scholastic and Warner the licensing rights for free.
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh come on, the book was HUGE before the movie got a director or anything...
For any book author to license movie rights for 1M pounds a year after the debut book would be pretty huge. Of course in retrospective you might say that Rowling should have waited, but the book series became pop culture without the movies' help.
It was proven again and again that he hasn't any significantly real sources. Why is he sometimes way off of NPD ? And if he has enough realiable sources why does he adjust his data to NPD's ?
Do you think shops like Gamestop, BestBuy, etc give out their data for free cause there is a guy who runs a website about it ?
See the chapter about adjusting his data ...
Successful marketing is when it translates into sales, not just giving the consumer some new piece of knowledge. The premise of your argument is a bit off base.
Yes, but you're forgetting the times when the data is very close to NPD within a 10% margin of error in fact.
NPD vs Vgchartz Dec 2008
DS 3.04m vs 2,790,902
Wii 2.15m vs 2,985,903
X360 1.44m vs 1,521,379
PSP 1.02m vs 867,881
PS3 0.73m vs 711,777
PS2 0.41m vs 461,340
NPD vs Vgchartz Dec 2009
PlayStation 2 333.2K
PlayStation 3 1.36M
PSP 654.7K
Xbox 360 1.31M
Wii 3.81M
Nintendo DS 3.31M
NPD adjusts their data, that doesn't make them a bad source does it?
Stop it. Anyone who knows even rudimentary statistics realizes that their numbers are, at best, educated guesses. The description of their "proprietrary and ever-developing methods" are frankly a bit embarrassing. Now, had their numbers been presented as such, I'd have no issue with them. There are probably lots of members even on this board that could be just as close to NPD over time pulling numbers out their 'educated asses', but wouldn't dream of pawning that off as reliable data.
Kudos for the initiative and as an entertainment site, just don't going about believing their data has any factual merit.
Ok look, I hate that we have to keep coming back to this, but in isolation Uncharted 2 is doing well enough that I don't think we need to toss-around 'failure' in there to describe the strategy.
I only mention it because it along with many other PS3 games often get glopped into the "if only people had played it they would have bought it" type category, which I think is bogus.
NPD 2008, numbers are within 10% of NPD aside from the Wii, and thats an educated guess?
Considering that both NPD and them have a margin of error, thats pretty close. How many analysts do you know of that get within 10% for 5/6 for NPD?
As for their methods being proprietary, do you see NPD discussing their methods?
Well I am with you there; I think Uncharted 2 is a great game, but it is much more specific than some other titles. Platformers I think are not everyone's cup of tea when it's all said and done, less so now than in ages past. I own it for its role in my overall collection and for its 'quality' factor - without those abstract traits, it's not a genre I generally would gravitate towards either.
DuckThor Evil
Legend
The fact that they adjust the data actually makes them more usable. Their initial predictions are sometimes way off, and I don't pay any attention to them, but info that is a bit older is imo usable.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
I'm going purely by TV advertising media blitz. TV adverts during primetime are quite expensive. And no other title in the past few years has had as large a TV advertising blitz as UC2. L4D 2 isn't even close.
Even Halo 3 didn't feature ads as frequently on TV (at least in the US, no clue about Europe.
UC2's TV marketing blitz in the US was only rivaled by the PS3 TV marketing blitz this past Holiday season...
Regards,
SB
Uh, yeah. I just thought we were making a distinction between pre-release hype and word of mouth based on actual game play experience.
Of course pre-release hype is important for first day sales and viral marketing can sometimes be a successful method to achieve it together with conventional marketing. Some games have been more successful at viral marketing than others.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Actually HP was a rather huge book phenomenon for years prior to the movies being made. Thus why WB earmarked a rather large budget for it.
Hell, I remember grown women going on and on and on about it for years before the movie came out, not to mention all the kids.
Regards,
SB
Silent_Buddha
Legend
That's actually an interesting line of thinking. Considering how much communication there is on Live, it's far easier for word of mouth to spread.
Thus good titles will get boosted while bad titles will get surpressed as you hear about it from people while gaming/chatting/whatever on the X360.
And if all of your gamer buddies are going to be picking up a certain game you'll be more likely to pick it up.
Having universal voice chat in Live is quite likely Microsoft's most brilliant move.
As an example look at how Forza 3 has performed below (some peoples) expectations. And also look at the huge word of mouth backlash it has received for the way online match creation was changed. I'd imagine that far more than forum angst, the voice chat among gamers in Live had a more profound effect on its sales.
Regards,
SB
