Japan Sales Thread *renamed
- Thread starter 22psi
- Start date
Because most people aren't PS3 owners yet. I believe the point being made was that at the start of the last generation, there were lots of compelling titles exclusive to PS2. With the move to multi-platform for a lot of them, there are fewer titles unique to PS3. All this wouldn't really matter if PS3 were the same price as 360, or even a bit more, but a lot of people bought the PS2 last time because of titles like GTA3. What good reason is there for someone to pay that extra money when most games are now coming to a cheaper platform?
I agree, if you already own a PS3, you shouldn't care but right now, Sony needs as many interesting titles exclusive to it's platform as possible
When are we going to see downloadable games in the figures, by the way? It's becoming rather important. For instance I bought Tekken, Blast Factor, Sudoku, Flow, and Super Rub-a-Duck ... all great value for money, and together costing less than one full game (until the 25th of this month in Europe anyway - I mean, Tekken for less than 10 euros, it's a steal!).
Apart from that I bought two full games: Motorstorm and Resistance. (I've spent more time with Super Rub-a-Duck than with Motorstorm so far, though - loved Super Rub-a-Duck, got all golds this weekend).
It kind of matters, and I hope we can get figures.
Apart from that I bought two full games: Motorstorm and Resistance. (I've spent more time with Super Rub-a-Duck than with Motorstorm so far, though - loved Super Rub-a-Duck, got all golds this weekend).
It kind of matters, and I hope we can get figures.
The only figure we got so far was from Nintendo's financial report, which stated 3.3 millions VC games sold before the end of their fiscal year. Sometimes, we get figures from MS press releases, but they tend to bundle demo downloads with actual XBLA games purchases and other DLC, so getting an actual number is hard.
Of course, the manufacturer is the only source for that kind of data (hard to ask NPD or Media Create to track those sales
). I agree with you that it's becoming important (at least with the hardcore crowd : I've bought so far 19 XBLA titles, some DLC (Oblivion, GH2), and 4 VC titles, so in the end it's making a not so tiny sum...
DuckThor Evil
Legend
So if he had placed an order say first of January to some internet store, he wouldn't still have a unit? I'm pretty sure he would have had many fun hours with it already.
DuckThor Evil
Legend
I know, but one shouldn't be complaining then, if one is not willing to do a small sacrifice, in this case ordering from the internet
It is not a bid deal, if you really wan't it. The amount of posts Natoma has written on the subject implies that he really want's it, yet ordering from the internet is too much of an obstacle to get over? It really isn't my business, but I just find it rather weird.
I agree Paul, though I do believe those people that bought a PS2 for GTA3 played (or are still playing) a few more titles rather than just that single one. I'm sure that among those other titles that they are playing, some or possibly 1st/2nd generation Sony games or well known PlayStation franchises that may or may not be still exclusive. I see the point that there is a larger price different now and today, but I also think that people that bought a PS2 in the last 2 years are unlikely to be already thinking about the PS3, especially at current prices (and Xb360 isn't quite at that sweet spot price yet).
I just think the picture is a bit larger than just looking at a few games that happen to be not exclusive anymore.
Besides, I don't think people are that daft to not see why PS3 is more expensive. They may not get why they need a harddrive in the system and what benefits that yields [for them], but I'm sure Blu-Ray should carry some weight. If it's something they see as good to have and worth the price or not, well, that's a different argument, one that obviously is dependant on how BluRay vs HD-DVD plays out....
Agreed in general.
I think the only real "risk" ps3 buyers (or potential buyers) will face is the loss of the more unique/quirky/nitch 3rd party games. Sony themselves seem to still value these creative endevours with titles like Super Rubba Ducky etc. Third party devs though will have a bit more risk on their hands. The demographic of "ps3 gamer" is not fully defined yet. The library is limited and the timeframe to sample userbase habbits is also limited. Any dev looking to create a ps2 class quirky/nitch game (like Katamari Damacy) could try their luck in the DL section of the ps3 library, or perhaps try the xb360 live arcade section, or Wii.
Last gen it was a no brainer. The dev coded for ps2 and that was that. Until each platform has a clearly defined userbase (or a userbase large enough to carry any game type ala ps2), developing these types of titles will be a risky endeavor that may flop on ps3 or xb360 or Wii. I think of the three, Wii clearly has the least amount of risk for these types of titles given Wii's popularity in Japan and Japan's desire for these more unique/quirky/nitch titles.
AAA games, I think it would take a catastrophic ps3 sales flop to turn these titles away from ps3. In this type of game I think there is no reason to worry for ps3 owners (or potential owners).
The price argument is a valid one for undecided gamers. This gen, anyone that decides against multiconsole ownership will undoubtedly miss out on some great games given the parity this gen. Specifically Wii.
scooby_dooby
Legend
That's the thing, I am interested in playing sequels of good games with HD graphics, but if it's just a gamecube-esque game with motion sensing I have almost no attraction to it.
Fair enough, but I think it's fairly crippled by being 480p anyways. Gameplay is key to the Wii for me, and so far it seems most games that have really tried to build themselves around the controls have been poor (i.e. Red Steel), I guess Wii Sports would be the exception.
Hopefully!
I think that's rather subjective. It obviously doesn't float your boat - it does however float mine. Perhaps I'm biased being a PlayStation exclusive owner for the last 2 generations, but just as I am, I'm sure there are many others that think a like and actually enjoy the 1st party offerings on the PlayStation.
Polyphony Digital, Naughty Dog games, Evolution studios, the team behind Ico, various games from the Sony studios in Britain is what makes it my choice of purchase. And the exclusives you're refering to: A big share of those games are still on PS3, even if not as an exclusive anymore. In other words, why should a PS3 owner care if sequels to the exclusive games he enjoyed most on PS2 end up on other consoles this generation? It's the combination of 1st/2nd and 3rd party software that makes a platform appealing - not only the former. And after that, there's still hardware potential and other things like BluRay, connectivity between platforms that make a difference.
Of course, not saying that this is better for everyone compared to what other platforms are offering. It either floats your boat or it doesn't, so I'm not really sure what your saying other than that you obviously prefer what Wii is offering.
Ok, you named studios. I'm asking for titles. What 1st party titles are truly top notch? MS has the same problem with their inhouse 1st party titles as well.
We all know the Nintendo IP. What 1st party Sony IPs are quality? Again, my comment was in response to the 1st party comment made by scooby_dooby.
You really have no clue how difficult getting a Wii is these days in the states. Paul for example sent me a link to an online store that had just received around 10 Wii's. I checked the online link maybe 20 minutes later and they were gone, with a notice that they had no clue when they'd get another shipment in.
Maybe Wii's are really easy to find in Finland, but they certainly are not here, online or brick and mortar.
Ico? Shadow of the C...? Gran Turismo? The Jak series? Just to name a few.
They might not float your boat, but they do mine, more so than many Nintendo games (and I have played them). The above mentioned games also have sold quite reasonably well, so it's not just me, obviously. But hey, to each their own preferences, right?
I wasn't aware Jak and Daxter was Sony 1st party. GT and Ico I knew. I haven't played of Shadow of the Colossus however. I know Wipeout and Warhawk as well. But none of those titles have genre defining classic titles that really stand the test of time like the Nintendo IPs have.
The Wipeout series, the most exposed 1st party IP in terms of multiple sequels, has been hit and miss unfortunately.
Actually, the most exposed 1st party game would probably have to be Gran Turismo, given it's the only game besides GTA that ever came close to the success the Mario franchise has enjoyed over the years.
Re: "Standing the test of time like Nintendo IPs have" - I'm sorry, but that's something that's purely subjective and very debatable. I know it's some kind of belief that Nintendo's 1st party games are better than Sony's or Microsofts, probably due to the fact that's all Nintendo was ever good at selling the last 2 generations (...and 3rd parties complained about) - it for sure isn't all that big of a point to all none Nintendo owners outthere.
BTW: God of War is another excellent 1st party game/franchise. To play devils advocat, how many games from Nintendo can you name that don't have Mario in the title? Zelda's one - what else?
scooby_dooby
Legend
Final Fantasy, Gran Turismo, MGS have all been around for at least 3 generations now, over 10 years, and they top the US sales charts.
Also, just because an IP was created last generation, and hasn't 'stood the test of time', doesn't mean they aren't sought after system sellers this generation. R&C, Grand Theft Auto, SOCOM, Kingdom Hearts all sold over 2million in the US alone. These are all very popular franchises from PS2 last generation.
On the other hand, Gamecube has only 1 title to sell over 2million in the US, Super Smash Bros. Though Mario Cart, and Mario sunshine were close.
You could argue that Sony's biggest games aren't 1st party, and technically you'd be right, but as far as the gamer is concerned it doesn't matter.
archangelmorph
Veteran
Your attitude to this is completely flawed.. Dissmissing the weight/strength/merit/quality of Sony's first party offerings just because they don't appeal to you or because you haven't played them is, quite frankly, childish..
I think the sales of these well established franchises speak for themselves..
Sony's best 1st party titles ARE highly revered and genre-defining.. the only difference between them and nintendo's offerings are two-fold:
- Diversity - Sony has many more of these top quality 1st party titles than nintendo which also span a much wider genre set.. Obviousbly sales-wise some genres sell better than others and therefore no matter how amazing a wipeOut game can be, it will always have limited appeal purely because not everybody is into sci-fi racing.. Also Sony spend alot more effort "creating" in terms of establishing new IP each generation and lots of it.. The biggest of the bunch sometimes get sequels but there are alot that dont (perfect example would be Primal on the PS2 which sold pretty well, was a great title but Sony haven't announced plans to follow it up to date..) Nintendo on the other hand prefer to put out Mario and Zelda on every platform to date and (in mario's case) in just about as many different kinds of games they can find.. (When was the last time they introduced a new IP?)
- Competition - Sony's 1st party AAA titles compete against each other and more importantly against very strong third party software.. Games like MGS, DMC, FF, R&C etc can affect sales of 1st party offerings and prevent sales of the biggest and best 1st party titles pissing off into the stratosphere (6mil +) like nintendo's offerings whom, historically have always landed in a market filled with piss poor 3rd party software and a very limited range of games (and "good games") in general.. Face it, nintendo's biggest franchises are so successful because nintendo gamers have never ever been given anything better to make them forget about these titles.. However in Sony's case consumers regularly get swamped with waves of software from 1st, 2nd and 3rd parties, so much so that if a game hits the market at the wrong time it can generate HUGE critical acclaim and yet fail to generate the revenue to back it up due to too much strong market competition (e.g. Okami and many more..)
Nintendo could if they wanted to launch a new mario game every month and make buckets of cash from it (regardless of the games quality)..
In short:
Nintendo 1st party franchises = "the biggest cash cow in the games industry!"
No doubt that Nintendo beats their IPs to death but they come out with new IPs every year. However, they sell well for the most part so why would you blame Nintendo for supplying what customers want. Nintendos 1st party has just as much diversity as Sony's from Mario to Zelda to PoKemon to Brain Age to Wii Sports, there is a plethora of different genres where Nintendo IPs exist and do well.
Almost all the well known Nintendo's IPs were developed and flourished in face of heavy competition. The MG, FF, Dragon Quest, Prince of Persia and EA sports titles are current series that originally competed against Nintendo's IPs during their heydays. There were also former popular third party titles and series like Castlevania, Mega man, Mortal Kombat, Gradius, Dragon Dragon and Street Fighter. Nintendo IPs have always done well whether in isolated bubbles that were the GC and N64 to the heavily third party supported NES and SNES.
Nintendo could if they wanted to launch a new mario game every month and make buckets of cash from it (regardless of the games quality)..
In short:
Nintendo 1st party franchises = "the biggest cash cow in the games industry!"