360 To Do Worse Than Xbox This Round?
- Thread starter Ben-Nice
- Start date
Yes but Nintendo isn't a 3rd Party software developer and those #'s you put out include all sorts of stuff not JUST software sales.
So are you sit here and tell me that Nintendo sells more games in the States or Europe for that matter than all of EA combined? I find that awfully hard to belive, especially madden alone kills everyone in sales every year.
So are you sit here and tell me that Nintendo sells more games in the States or Europe for that matter than all of EA combined? I find that awfully hard to belive, especially madden alone kills everyone in sales every year.
Last edited by a moderator:
Readykilowatt
Regular
c0_re said:
So, are you saying that all a console needs to be successful is support from EA and Ubisoft?
EA and Ubisoft are both important companies, but you need more than those two developers to dominate this industry as a console maker. BTW, Nintendo is bigger, more profitable and has more influence globally than EA.EA and Ubisoft make mostly cross platform titles. If you compare xbox exclusives vrs playstation exclusives it does not look good for xbox. If you own a pc and a playstation xbox has even less new games for you. I don't see this situation changing very much with 360. 360 is still closer to a top of the line pc than playstation and they still don't have many of the really good exclusives.
scooby_dooby
Legend
Readykilowatt said:
like Bioware, Silicon Knights, Epic, Rare, Bungie, Bethesda & Lionhead Studios?
Not to mention it actually is getting some decent support out of japan from companies like Capcom, Sega & Mistwalker. Should have 5 or 6 true jrpg's on the console within the next couple of years which is 6 more than xbox ever had.
It won't have nearly as much japanese stuff as sony obviously, but at the same time, it's japanese game library is already looking much better than last time which can only help broadens the appeal.
scooby_dooby said:
People keep confusing "I liked the one SK game released last gen" with "SK is an important developer." Or maybe it's "Matt @ IGN says SK is the bomb diggity, so they must be." Seeing as Eternal Darkness sold around 250,000 units and they seem to release one game per console generation, I'd love to see people quit mentioning in the same breath as Epic and Bethesda.
fearsomepirate said:
I love how he mentions 7 developers, and you try to dismiss his whole post just because of 1.
And BTW, I'm pretty sure the TWO games they sold last generation would have sold a lot better if they weren't on a Nintendo console, where adult oriented games pretty much all flop. Even RE4's sales were so bad on the Gamecube that Capcom yanked the exclusivity of the game and ported it to the PS2.
SK's lack of success was due to the console they were working on and the fans of that consoles refusal to buy anything that isn't a 1st party Nintendo title. I bet Eternal Darkness would have been a million+ seller on the PS2.
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
Well, SK might be a factor this generation as they are making a high-budget trilogy for X360.
scooby_dooby
Legend
fearsomepirate said:
You mean Eternal Darkness that got a 9.4 at gamespot and average 91% at gamerankings based on over 70 reviews? What more do you want?
And as far as 1 game per generation, Eternal Darkness in 2002, Metal Gear in 2004, that's 2. 2 games in 4 years is as good as anyone.
I think Silicon Knights is one of MS's biggest 2nd part investments, and their trilogy is going to be ridiculously high budget, to dismiss these games would be a big mistake IMO.
on the thread question;
if we are talking financially, I don't think anything could do worse than what Box did.
in view of userbase size, game library, service, etc. I see X2 already doing better than what Box had in its post launch. things look bright for X2 this time. they have a much better looking and desinged system, better Live service, better looking games, more dev support, etc.
remember, you don't have to be a best seller to do good in the business. if they can turn a profit while making customers happy, then mission accomplished.
if we are talking financially, I don't think anything could do worse than what Box did.
in view of userbase size, game library, service, etc. I see X2 already doing better than what Box had in its post launch. things look bright for X2 this time. they have a much better looking and desinged system, better Live service, better looking games, more dev support, etc.
remember, you don't have to be a best seller to do good in the business. if they can turn a profit while making customers happy, then mission accomplished.
scooby_dooby said:
I want decent sales (all 3 Resident Evil games sold much better than ED, by the way). It's like saying that getting Beyond Good & Evil 2 will make or break a console's sales performance. Metal Gear Solid was a remake. I should have said one original game per console generation (it's what I meant--I have both ED and MGS:TTS. Both had their merits while also being deeply flawed).
I'm not trying to dismiss the whole post because of one developer (Bethesda and Epic are hugely important). I simply have this little pet peeve against people talking up Silicon Knights like they really matter, especially compared to the big guns who have a proven record of releasing great games that sell well and push technological boundaries. I say they really matter when they actually do something that matters. As far as I'm concerned, they haven't proven they have what it takes to make an original game that really grabs the market.
They claim they're doing an original trilogy for X360. I think we should take a "wait and see" attitude. One, to wait and see if the first game is actually all that good, and two, to wait and see if they actually complete the trilogy on the X360 instead of, say, barely getting Too Human 2 out as the 360 is gasping for air at the end of its life cycle, or postponing it to X720.
Last edited by a moderator:
oli2 said:
It was based on the total flops that most of the other RE games on the GCN turned into. Other than the first RE Remake, all of the other games sold FAR below Capcom's expectations.
Their popular franchises are a double-edged sword for them. They sell well to their established fans, but their reliance on them turns away FAR more gamers than they attract.
They may be popular for Nintendo fans, and they may make Nintendo money, but 110 million PS2's compared to 20 million Gamecubes says a lot about where Nintendo's reliance on those franchises have left them.
fearsomepirate said:
Legacy of Kain has sold over 2 million copies.
Once again, SK's low sales on the Gamecube are the fault of Nintendo's fan base, not the developer. If ED had been on the Xbox or PS2 it would have sold FAR better than it did. Likewise, if SK had made a cutsie, family-friendly game for the Gamecube it probably would have sold at least 3 times better than ED did.
They were just developing for the wrong console. Even they are aware of that, which is why Too Human is no longer being made for a Nintendo console like it was going to when it was first announced.
scooby_dooby
Legend
Who do they have to live up to your custom made specs in order to be considered a premier developer? Bottom line is Legacy of Kain was a great series, Eternal Darkness was very critically acclaimed (far more so than BG&E), and the MGS remake also got great reviews(8-9's). I don't know how many developers display that kind of consistancy.fearsomepirate said:
Game sales certainly are not the only indicator of quality titles, otherwise we would consider Enter The Matrix, and Perfect Dark Zero great games.
Do you think if Eternal Darkness was on PS2 or XBOX it wouldn't have sold at least a million copies?
I don't see the reason to be pessimistic, they have a massive budget, their last original IP was terrific, and from everything we've seen/heard this game looks absolutely amazing.
As for the trilogy, they are already well into pre-production of part 2, and Dyack stated explicitly they are going to try to ensure that the release dates are not to far apart so again, I don't see alot of reason to be so pessimistic.
Silicon Knights made the first Legacy of Kain, not Soul Reaver or Defiance. I played it; it was OK. A lot of self-important gothy vampire blather and acceptable 2D graphics. And that was 10 years ago.scooby_dooby said:
Kojima directed the MGS remake, and the gameplay felt very last-gen at the time. Everything ingame was simply redone from the PSx title. When even the camera angles aren't original, I find it hard to get excited. Let's talk about titles where SK had to exert a little creativity rather than redoing textures of yesteryear in high-res and rerecording old dialogue samples.
No, I don't. I think ED sold as well as it did (288,000 units) because old N64 fans were still hyped about it and the critical acclaim of reviewers (which the average gamer didn't pay too close attention to in 2002). It really wasn't that scary, the graphics were cheesy (I remember wondering what was up with that skeleton in the stupid hat when shopping for Cube games at Best Buy--yes, I know it was historically accurate, but that's not what the consumer looks for. I bought Resident Evil 0 instead), and the box art made it look like a mediocre action RPG. I don't think it would have been the same without Nintendo's involvement. It would have been a very different game, probably not as good, and it probably have received even less hype.
I also get really tired of people pointing to REMake and RE0 as "proof" that Nintendo consumers don't and won't buy M-rated games. Remakes don't sell well, and the controls in RE0 were horrid, the plot was boring, and the monsters weren't scary. The sole reason to buy that game was to look at the pretty graphics. For such an otherwise mediocre game, 1 million worldwide sales isn't all that bad.
I look at Too Human as their first opportunity to really do something special, not as a must-have title from a powerhouse developer. They aren't a powerhouse yet. Eternal Darkness was deeply flawed, but showed a lot of potential. Konami held their hands through Metal Gear Solid. That's why I'm not leaping with unreasonable optimism. To be a powerhouse developer, you need to be able to point to more than one 10-year-old commercial success and a game that critics loved but failed to really wow the average consumer. I don't think that's arbitrary; I think it's quite reasonable.
Last edited by a moderator:
scooby_dooby
Legend
In your opinion. I've never seen gamespot give a 9.4 to a "deeply flawed" game.fearsomepirate said:
It's hard to take your opinion seriously when 70 professional reviewers disagree with you, and your biggest complaints are about the box art and a skeleton wearing a hat. Especially when gamespot describes it as:
And IGN (9.6):
Also the graphics look pretty cool to me:
http://img.gamespot.com/gamespot/images/2002/gamecube/eternaldarkness/ed_0621_screen011.jpg
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
