All purpose Sales and Sales Rumours and Anecdotes [2021 Edition]

It's utter madness to think MS could have gotten away with launching with a digital only S. I can't believe we're even entertaining this idea. I'll get some popcorn and let you guys try to talk reason into DSoup. Fight!

PS: @DSoup I appreciate the out of the box thinking you bring to the table, but c'mon!

 

That isn't what I said, and that wasn't the question.

And I wasn't asking if people here think it would be a good idea. When a simple question gets mis-read by so many people, who then start arguing about something not said I lose all enthusiasm to visit this place. It's only purpose is to chat and discuss things and the medium is you write something and other people read it but when only one half of this happens it demonstrates how pointless it is. It also explains why most threads are in a perpetual sate of disagreement and argument.

 

This is why I do the "count to 10 and take a deep breath" before replying rule when considering whether I want to reply to a reply to one of my posts. Or better yet, the "give it 24 hours or more before replying" rule. And then see if it's worth continuing a conversation thread or to just go my seperate way for the time being. Doesn't always work, but at some point the time invested isn't worth the back and forth. While at other times it is. And sometimes new insight into something will still come from the most unexpected posters.

It helps that I don't feel the need to change the world and if a person wants to continue living in a bubble, it's no skin off my back. And if I'm living in a bubble, well it's my own gdamn bubble. In which case, again no need to force my bubble into someone else's bubble. OK, this is getting weird now.

Regards,
SB

 

Don't let it get you down. When we engage and write down our thoughts to be shared, we gain insight into our own thinking, we open ourselves up to criticism, and if people don't understand, we continually write until we can get what's on our head onto paper. It's a process, and it can be frustrating, but if you ultimately succeed in getting what was in your head to someone else head, I think you should give yourself a pat on the back; it can be an enjoyable process when it does happen.

And as we try to improve or get better at writing what we want to say, then ultimately we can say we learned something. We learned more about the topic we were discussing; we learned what's important to our audience, and what's not; we learned misconceptions, both theirs and ours; we learned to teach, to explain the concepts they are glossing over; we learned which words are traps, pitfalls and triggers; we learned what made people change positions; we learned to listen, and we learned to communicate.

It's not all bad =P It's just frustrating. But all processes are.

 

At the risk of misunderstanding you, why would MS go all in on a system that’s in many ways less powerful than the X1X? Surely it would be crucified. Economies of scale may get them to a $250 500GB XSS and, say, a $350 1TB XSS+ with a disc drive, but a vocal minority would only be yelling about 8GB RAM and 4TF. Enter a $399 16GB 10TF PS5….

I guess you’re saying that early adopters and Xbox ecosystem gamers would buy up all available units for the first year or two anyway, and MS ends up with potentially double the “next-gen” customer and Game Pass base overall, but it would be a PR slog. Would Game Pass be good enough to counteract the hardware disappointment? Imagine Digital Foundry comparing Forza Horizon 5 on an XSS vs a X1X.

It’s a cool thought experiment, but it seems like a big risk. Would they be willing to swallow the PR backlash for a few million more early sales? Would the extra units be enough to counteract scalping in a meaningful way? Don’t these companies want all those “Brand New Console Is So Hard to Find Right Now” articles, a la Nintendo?

 

Two theories I have.
One theory is that not only are there more chips per wafer for the series S but that the percentage viable chips after testing higher in comparison to Series X chips. The other is that after quality control the percentage of viable machines are higher as well. When you look at the tear downs of the Series X/S and PS5 you can tell that the S is closer to having a conventional design in comparison to the other two system and likely cheaper to put together.

 

They wouldn't, and many games on Series S compare well against One X games (the CPU is vastly superior, as is I/O) and Series S can still deliver experiences that One X cannot, like RT and the Matrix Experience. But don't consider it going all in, call it postponing the launch of Series X with a view to sell a larger overall number of Series S consoles than whatever total number of Series S and Series X consoles.

 

To reapproach your question and hopefully answer the question.

Yes, the Series S would have reached equilibrium with supply and demand quicker but would have sold additional consoles as the lack of series X would have put additional pressure on the PS5's lack of supply. Bascially leaving the Series S as the only readily available alternative to the Switch since launch and for years to come. LOL

 

So at this rate, we're talking on average ~84k units being sold a month in the UK for XBSX/S, and possibly ~112k units being sold a month for PS5 (with a possible 1.3M+ PS5 units sold since last December). Not bad at all for either side. A very close race at this point in the UK.

 

Its not unusual for Sony, they drop IPs all the time

Buzz, Everybody's Golf, Everquest, the Getaway, Gravity Rush, Infamous, Killzone, Little Big Planet, Jax and Daxter, Medievil, Motorstorm, Resistance, Singstar, Socom, Twisted Metal, Until Dawn, Warhawk, Wipeout,

I'm happy for them to do this, personally I would be glad if there was no more uncharted, god of war, last of us etc games, they have had their day. Time to move on, perhaps in the 2030s release something again

EDIT: Recent Article

Unit sales are only one factor in the sequel equation | Opinion
Decision-making over franchises can seem obscure, but there's usually solid logic behind such investment -- and sales are only part of the puzzle

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/artic...es-are-only-one-factor-in-the-sequel-equation

 

Exactly. You need to drop old IPs to create space for new ones. If Naughty Dog never moved on from Crash Bandicoot and Jak and Daxter, there would never have been an Uncharted or The Last of Us.

I think creatively, things and thinking risks becoming stale if you rarely work outside of specific IP for years on end. E.g. Uncharted 1, 2 and 3 are incredibly similar mechanics-wise. Then Naughty Dog made The Last of Us which had a significant stealth element, then the stealth appeared in Uncharted 4 and the game was better for it because there was more gameplay options and diversity.

 

Exactly, giving the developers a new IP no doubt also reinvigorates them, pity the poor bastards doing a COD/FIFA game each year.
The only 2 IPs that sony should keep are GT and spiderman (which is obviously sonys most popular IP ATM true this could change in 5 years, last month #6 in the UK 13 months after release, higher than any nintnedo title!)
sure the last of us 3 would prolly sell 20+ million (under 30 million) but who knows, maybe a new IP by naughty dog would become a breakout smash (a la fortnight, GTA)

 

It’s curious to see where things head now that we are seeing series consoles on shelves. Either demand has been fulfilled or MS has resolved some major supply bottlenecks

 

From the article:

The fact that unit sales are not the sole basis for publishers' evaluation of games' performance is arguably an incredibly obvious point, but some of the reasoning behind that may be slightly less obvious.
​

Not obvious enough, or the conversations would crop up in the first place

A great article though and anybody who is still scratching their heads why Days Gone was cancelled having sold more than other games which got sequels, will have some of their questions answered. it also acknowledges the point I've made countless times that for project decision-makers, it's not just about making a profit (as in you bring in more than you spent), it's about maximising the profit, i.e. could make more by doing something different:

For starters, we should note that the number of units a game needs to shift to call it a success can differ wildly between projects, as there's a very different level of investment across different titles. That's true not only in terms of development and marketing costs, or the costs of licensing certain IP to create a game, but also in terms of less tangible but nonetheless important costs like the opportunity cost of tying up a given IP and/or studio in a given project. In other words, given the resources that were used to create a game (the IP, the talented developers, the budget, etc.), could a better return on investment have been made by devoting those resources to something else instead?
​

 

Wasn't the MMO stuff spun off to another company ? Both EQ and EQ2 servers are still up making money. I am said that EQ Next or whatever never made it out. Lot of cool ideas there

 

Yes, SOE got renamed to the Daybreak Game Company when they were sold to Columbus Nova (later denied due to some controversy due to Columbus Nova being tied to the Russian Renova Group).

Both EQ and EQ2 are still releasing expansions with the latest one for both being released Dec. 2021.

Regards,
SB

 

Monster Hunter Rise has now sold more than 8 Million Units since launch in March 2021.
The game released on PC / Steam last week where it peaked at 134,262 concurrent players.

 

Seems strange to release this info, as It was over 7.5 million in october on switch alone last september
https://www.siliconera.com/monster-hunter-rise-sales-surpass-7-5-units-worldwide/
Why not wait for 10 million which surely will arrive by march 2022?

 

I doubt there was 7.5m concurrent players active on switch.

 

They just released on Steam and wanted to show how successful its been in just 1 week with the high concurrent steam user counts.