Capcom loves 360.

expletive said:
Do you think you would have bought it without a demo after you read the reviews and the positive feedback of purchasers on the forum though?
Click to expand...
Definitely would not have, given the mediocre scores. The game just doesn't come across that compelling on paper.
 
I bought it based on the demo... had pictured it as repetitive but the demo was pretty fun to play. I already had Madden & Saints Row pre-ordered and was going to skip this one but the demo changed my mind.
 
Sis said:
Well, add me to the anecdote bucket. I only downloaded the demo "because it was there". I thought all the previews were somewhat stupid and thought the game would be extremely boring.

The demo convinced me otherwise and I bought it on release day; as well, a buddy of mine did the same thing. Tried the demo then bought the game.
Click to expand...

Count me in that group too. I only downloaded the demo because I was bored one afternoon, and found the game to be quite fun. I've rented it, and after playing it for a week I've decided to buy the game. It's just too much fun to miss out on.
 
Sis said:
Definitely would not have, given the mediocre scores. The game just doesn't come across that compelling on paper.
Click to expand...

Mediocre scores?

It's averaging an 84.5 at Gamerankings. That puts it about equal to DMC3, and higher than DMC2, and higher than all but the first and last Resident Evil games.
 
So, I guess those rumors of RE5 being PS3 exclusive are probably false?



ninzel said:
And yet Epic won't release a demo for GOW. :cry: So who knows what's correct.
Click to expand...
The difference is that Gears doesn't need a demo to ramp up interest. Epic's time is better spent on polishing the actual game. All Gears needs is a big marketing push to sell well over a million copies. And I have no doubt MS will give it such a push.
 
expletive said:
I think Capcom may be giving too much credit to the demo for it sales and not enough credit to their development team. The game is selling cause its flipping fun not becuase of the demo, imo (see: Full Auto for the converse).
Click to expand...
It's selling so well becuase the demo provided a free and simple way for everyone to see how flipping fun and well ploished the game is.
 
Inane_Dork said:
The difference is that Gears doesn't need a demo to ramp up interest. Epic's time is better spent on polishing the actual game. All Gears needs is a big marketing push to sell well over a million copies. And I have no doubt MS will give it such a push.
Click to expand...

I guess I'm in the minority.I won't buy a game unless I try it first,which means GOW will be a rental for me. And once I have a copy to play through fully,what are the odd's I will buy the the game only to play it again. IF the game has great replay value I will though.
But you are correct, the magority of people fall for marketing and don't make wise decisions with their money when it comes to buying games.
Even on the 360, the magority of players are not playing multiplayer, so the magority of players are buying the game for the single player,whereas they could simply rent it for a fraction of the cost and get the same experience. Just because a magority of people do something, doesn't automatically make it the wise thing to do.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fukuda commented further on Xbox 360/PS3 ports, saying, "Capcom will conduct the first 50–60 percent of the PS3 and Xbox 360 development process on PCs, only in the final stages using a development approach that is optimized for either the Xbox 360 or the PS3."
Click to expand...

Hmm, is that how most studios work these days? I guess I always had the (layman) impression that the earlier you're working on the target platform the better (assuming the tools/hardware are mature enough). Or in a multi-console case, targetting one closed platform and porting from there. With PCs being such a different environment and all...
 
kyleb said:
I'm taking Capcom's word for it as I'm sure they put a lot of effort into analyzing such things.
Click to expand...


Actually, and I made the same mistake, its not Capcom at all drawing a link between demos and sales, its the analyst in the quoted article. That said even he only 'suggests' the link and doesnt provide any concrete data to support it.
 
expletive said:
Actually, and I made the same mistake, its not Capcom at all drawing a link between demos and sales, its the analyst in the quoted article. That said even he only 'suggests' the link and doesnt provide any concrete data to support it.
Click to expand...

This isn't the first time though. EA stated pre-orders for Fight Night 3 went up astronomically immediately after the Demo hit.
 
ninzel said:
I guess I'm in the minority.I won't buy a game unless I try it first,which means GOW will be a rental for me. And once I have a copy to play through fully,what are the odd's I will buy the the game only to play it again. IF the game has great replay value I will though.
But you are correct, the magority of people fall for marketing and don't make wise decisions with their money when it comes to buying games.
Even on the 360, the magority of players are not playing multiplayer, so the magority of players are buying the game for the single player,whereas they could simply rent it for a fraction of the cost and get the same experience. Just because a magority of people do something, doesn't automatically make it the wise thing to do.
Click to expand...

For the sake of the industry, I hope you are in the minority. :devilish:
 
NucNavST3 said:
For the sake of the industry, I hope you are in the minority. :devilish:
Click to expand...

You should never worry about looking after the industry,that's their job. Your job as a consumer is to selfishly demand what you want,and force the devs to earn your purchase.
That's good for us and the industry.
 
NucNavST3 said:
For the sake of the industry, I hope you are in the minority. :devilish:
Click to expand...
It might be good for the industry if more people were that way. It'd stop publishers making money of weak games if people tried them and realized they were duff before giving the publisher any money. The end result would probably be less games but all of higher quality.
 
ninzel said:
You should never worry about looking after the industry,that's their job. Your job as a consumer is to selfishly demand what you want,and force the devs to earn your purchase.
That's good for us and the industry.
Click to expand...
Let's play a game. I'll make a statement and you can mark whether it's good or bad for the industry by way of satisfying consumers:

1) I will only pay 20$ at most for a game
2) I will only buy a game that involves Pokemon of some sort
3) I only rent. I never buy.
4) I only buy games based on movie licenses.
5) I only buy a game that I first try.
6) I only buy sequels to games.
 
Sis said:
Let's play a game. I'll make a statement and you can mark whether it's good or bad for the industry by way of satisfying consumers:

1) I will only pay 20$ at most for a game
2) I will only buy a game that involves Pokemon of some sort
3) I only rent. I never buy.
4) I only buy games based on movie licenses.
5) I only buy a game that I first try.
6) I only buy sequels to games.
Click to expand...

To answer all your questions, the answer is yes those are good for the industry because they are all different scenarios that fill a particular gamers preference.They represent choice.
If someone only wants to pay $20 for a game that's fine,as long as there are gamers that want big budget $60 games. Which there are.
There are plenty of kids who only play Pokemon,which again is fine as long as there are plenty of kids willing to play Halo as well. Which there are.
Renting games allows people who would otherwise not be willing to or able to buy games, to acess them. Some revenue is better than none.
Should I go on?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top