KZ2 and game budgeting in general *spin-off

[dobwal]

If this theory is valid, we ought to see it happen with other titles. Are there other games that have had extreme marketing beyond the market's interest, to adversely affect sales? I think of Gears here, which AFAICS had a similar heavy exposure, long lead-up with totally over-the-top, unrealistic PR shots, but that doesn't seem to hurt sales. One could argue KZ2 had a far longer lead time, hyped since '05, but IIRC it had a prominent lull. So unless every current PS3 owner watched E305, got hyped for KZ2, and over time got bored of waiting, I don't know that PR was intense enough to cause interest fatigue in the 12 months or so leading up to launch.

What other game other than KZ2 has received prominent attention 4 years prior to release.

Again, generally true of all games. It's not like XB360 owners have rushed to partake of Mirror's Edge, Lost Odyssey, yada yada. Hardly any new IPs do fantastically well unless they have the advantage of being launch/early titles. Devs have gone on record saying a new generation is the ideal time to launch an IP because of this.

They've been rushing to bunch of titles that begin life well into what was last gen. Games such as Call of Duty, Guitar Hero, Fable didn't release on their respective console's early years. And Sony has a history with releases of new IPs late in a generation with God of War and Gran Turismo. Furthermore, the PS3 is two years old not 5.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

What other game other than KZ2 has received prominent attention 4 years prior to release.

Sorry, can't help myself here, but...

We can point to something like Daikatana on PC. Yeah that didn't go well, then again the game was poop to begin with...

If Duke Nukem 4ever is ever actually released, I think it'll have the record for longest spread of time between announcement/hype and release...

Alan Wake is having a similar bit of long time between prominent attention and eventual release.

There's other yet to be released highly anticipated games that have yet to be released...

And in the past I know there's been other games with long lead times between announcement/preview/hype and actual release. I just can't think of many at the moment.

Regards,
SB

 

[BadTB25]

I think Shifty is on to something here.

Posters on this board may have known about the long lead up time to KZ2's release, but the average gamer may have not even heard of it other than the 2005 E3 announcement. It kind of lines up with some of the arguements relating to bad marketing that although in abundance, doesn't really generate the interest needed by the average consumer.

Then again, KZ2 may be one of those games that will reach the sales some have expected over a longer period of time.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

What other game other than KZ2 has received prominent attention 4 years prior to release.

There have been some, including Spore. However I don't think that alone matters. IMO the lull between KZ2's first showing and the pre-release hype dropped it off the mainstream radar, other than those relative who cared about the pre-console period and this game wondering where it was. It's not as if Sony have been hammering on about KZ2 for 4 years. Instead, there was the PR animation to showcase PS3, viewed and talked about in internet gaming circles but not badgering the mass-market with all things Killzone, and then nothing until a reasonable point ahead of the game's actual release. That is, the actual PR campaign - the dev quotes and making-of movies, the trailers, the ads - was very conventional, a similar timeframe to your typical high-visibility product AFAICS. Or certainly don't see much this past four years that was targeted at or reached some 15+ million non-internet following PS3 owners to bore them of this Killzone 2 game long before they had a chance tot buy it. What do you feel Joe Public was bombarded with to induce disinterest?

And Sony has a history with releases of new IPs late in a generation with God of War and Gran Turismo.

God of War sold 3 million to a userbase of 100 million. That's 3%! Relatively speaking, KZ2 has surpassed GOW's success with something like 7.5% adoption. Gran Turismo did do very well some years into the PS lifecycle, which only makes it an exception; not a rule. Other titles don't support the idea that a new IP can do proportionally well launched past the early entry point. Look at the top sellers across all platforms. They are invariably sequels or IP tie-ins. There will always be a few exceptions, but they are fringe cases and shouldn't be used as a basis of expectation. Just because one game can sell 10 million copies, doesn't mean all games can! About 2 million sales is good, and KZ2 may still get that in the long-run despite the relatively small install base.

Furthermore, the PS3 is two years old not 5.

That's still past the 'beginning'. I'd say the start of a gen is the first year or so, the end is the last two or three years when the next gen has launched, and everything in between is the middle. We could probably pinpoint an 'early period' looking at the average success of new IPs. If new IPs launching in the first 18 months tend to do better than new IPs launched after that window, then we can say the early days are the first 18 months. Regardless though, sales figures show us most games don't sell more than a couple of million, even to userbases in the many tens of millions, even > 100 million. And among the best-sellers-of-all-time, most, above 90%, are sequels or IP tie-ins with a previous market interest or launched in the first 18 months or whenever. This gen, the only games on XB360 that sold 3 million or more are Halo, COD, Gears, GTA, Assassin's Creed, Guitar Hero, Forza, and Lego Indiana Jones. Only one of those isn't an IP tie-in or sequel or wasn't a 'launch' (first 18 months) title, AC. And IIRC that had a lot of pre-release marketing! Extending the high-sales curve to about 2.5 million or me, we still see a lot of franchises. Kung Fu Panda, Fable II, Elder Scrolls IV, Guitar Hero II, Marvel:UA, Madden '08.

Looking at other systems, it's a similar story. New IPs launched past the launch window aren't to be expected to manage top-tier sales. They will manage a good, mainstream sell-through if they are successful. If you want to sell well above the odds, the 5, 6, 10 million units that every publisher would love, you either need a sequel or a ground-breaking launch title, or a lot of good fortune!
considerably more than 2 million sold on XB360 are

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Main character I'll say the same, as I will for visual style. We're comparing the relative appeal of a whole bunch of almost interchangeable space marine games.

And that's where you're completely wrong IMHO.

Just look at the advertisments of these games. Both Halo and Gears trailers, posters, and other artworks feature the main character a lot, they're memorable, easy to identify with and in fact more then the generic space marine.
Everyone can recognize Marcus and Master Chief. They're pop culture icons by now.

Now on the other hand, KZ2's hero isn't really visible anywhere. His squad mates were seen more and the most often used representation of the game is one kind of Helghast soldier.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Killzone is at this time a new landmark when it comes to visual realism

It's highly stylized, not realistic. It looks pretty good IMHO but nothing like the real world, or even your average movie (which is already larger than life).

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Let´s face it Killzone sold well but it will never be the game for everyone and it never was the intention of Sony or else it would not be called Killzone. It will always be easier for a parent to move on from Lego Starwars to pick up Halo which has a glossy astronaut on the cover than it will be for them to pick up Killzone 2 with the subtitle "Their home your hell".

If Sony knew and intended that, and still invested comparable amounts of money into the game, then that was fiscal suicide...

 

[Laa-Yosh]

I'd argue the contrary. For Halo 3, yeah, everyone knows Master Chief. For Halo 1, though, Master Chief looked like the green MP model in DOOM! I'd say they succeeded in spite of the main character. Remember that when Halo 1 came out, PC gamers were stumped: why exactly is this so great? But a multitude of factors helped push the game into a success and Halo 3 was just Microsoft being smart with their main IP.

Yeah, you're right about Halo1. Marketing didn't really boost its sales - in fact the game started relatively weak. But then word spread about it being easily the best for the Xbox and that's why it has managed to sell very well through the entire lifetime of that console.

However, KZ2 isn't going against Halo1, nor can it not take a look ath the sequels' marketing approaches. It would have been pretty easy to just learn from what MS did well and replicate it.

As for Marcus Fenix, I wouldn't call him a great character design either. Mostly a lot of BEEFCAKE!!

Doesn't matter as long as it works. Which makes it better then KZ2's which apparently doesn't work that well.

 

[joker454]

How would another Forza compare to GT5 which has been in development for a longer time?

Time doesn't always equal a better product. If it did them the next Duke Nukem will be the worlds greatest game ever. Maybe the work environment at the GT5 folk is bad. I remember seeing a video that showed someone who had setup a bed under his desk and was snoozing there. To me this points to a horrific work environment. If these guys are overworked, then it may very well be taking them 3 hours to do 1 hour of work.

As for Marcus Fenix, I wouldn't call him a great character design either. Mostly a lot of BEEFCAKE!!

Personally, Marcus and the other Gears characters to me are badass and the coolest part of the game. Just goes to show, different strokes for different folks.

 

[betan]

I cannot help but feel that two questions have not been addressed in this thread, as seem to be the case for all other high profile Sony titles.
What was Sony's expectation of KZ2 sales?
What sales would make this thread irrelevant?

For the first one, as someone who bothered to play KZ2, I can easily tell you that I wasn't expecting better sales than what it's doing currently. If indeed Sony was hoping for 4-5 million (or whatever would silence people) than I have to wonder if those guys heard things like play test given how high budgets for AAA games are. (Needless to say, I'm with Crossbar on this)

Second one is another question of interest. Take RE5 for example, the sequel to the best game of previous generation according to some, definitely much stronger franchise than KZ and many congratulated Capcom on sales. Yet PS3 version isn't doing much better than KZ2. This holly quest to understand and classify PS3 users is welcome as ever, but it feels like some people are trying just too hard without solid statistical evidence.

KZ2's supposedly huge sales potential has never existed outside of its fan bases' fantasies.

And the same goes for God of War 3. As good as they may be, both previous games have sold around 2-3 million for a huge PS2 userbase. GOW3 won't far much better as far as we can see at this point.

Another bomb confirmed.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

This gen, the only games on XB360 that sold 3 million or more are Halo, COD, Gears, GTA, Assassin's Creed, Guitar Hero, Forza, and Lego Indiana Jones. Only one of those isn't an IP tie-in or sequel or wasn't a 'launch' (first 18 months) title, AC. And IIRC that had a lot of pre-release marketing! Extending the high-sales curve to about 2.5 million or me, we still see a lot of franchises. Kung Fu Panda, Fable II, Elder Scrolls IV, Guitar Hero II, Marvel:UA, Madden '08.

I'm not entirely disagreeing with the the theory behind your post. In general I would agree that new IP's will generally do better in relation to it's install base when launched close to the launch of a new system.

However, I think you also forgot Left 4 Dead. I believe that has sold 3 million or more. Or if it hasn't yet, it's pretty darn close.

If we lower the threshold a bit lifetime sales of Mass Effect may creep in there also. Although that might be borderline with the early console lifetime.

Regards,
SB

 

[obonicus]

Personally, Marcus and the other Gears characters to me are badass and the coolest part of the game. Just goes to show, different strokes for different folks.

No doubt. I sorta like Marcus; I like Dom better, or I did until GeoW2. Now I like Terry Tate. But certainly, different strokes etc. But you'd be hardpressed to get one of these characters and say 'here, this is how you design a character'. It's just an extension of what Epic had been doing for a while -- big guys in power armor, except bigger and more badass.

I personally doubt Epic succeeded because of the character designs. It was probably more about curb-stomping and chainsaw-guns.

However, KZ2 isn't going against Halo1, nor can it not take a look ath the sequels' marketing approaches. It would have been pretty easy to just learn from what MS did well and replicate it.

I was arguing against the idea that Halo is what it is because of incredibly iconic characters. Like Carl said, KZ2's competition is more along the line of Gears. Or well, it should be, but clearly it's not.

Doesn't matter as long as it works. Which makes it better then KZ2's which apparently doesn't work that well.

Sure, but again, the argument was that these are clearly better character designs. Unless sales = quality, I don't think you can make that argument. And other character designs that ripped off GeoW didn't really come that close to that game's performance, either. Again, like Halo, Gears did a whole lot right, part of which was coming out at exactly the right time with relatively sparse competition.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

And that's where you're completely wrong IMHO.

Just look at the advertisments of these games. Both Halo and Gears trailers, posters, and other artworks feature the main character a lot, they're memorable, easy to identify with and in fact more then the generic space marine.
Everyone can recognize Marcus and Master Chief. They're pop culture icons by now.

Now on the other hand, KZ2's hero isn't really visible anywhere. His squad mates were seen more and the most often used representation of the game is one kind of Helghast soldier.

I think his point is that NOW we can recognize Master Chief because Halo has been around long enough and gained enough popularity that he has become an iconic figure. Similar to how Doom Guy became an iconic figure, but only after Doom became popular.

In other words it wasn't an iconic figure that helped make those titles popular, the title's popularity made rather featureless protagonists into iconic figures despite their blandness...

Marcus Fenix may be a case where he was an icon in the timeframe of the launch of the game. But that would mostly be because he was the main figure in what was a brilliantly simple advertisement. Noone knew who he was, but he was that guy in the commercial with the cool music.

In general though if a game becomes popular enough it's main character will generally become an icon whether or not it was a memorable character or not.

Regards,
SB

 

[Silent_Buddha]

For the first one, as someone who bothered to play KZ2, I can easily tell you that I wasn't expecting better sales than what it's doing currently. If indeed Sony was hoping for 4-5 million (or whatever would silence people) than I have to wonder if those guys heard things like play test given how high budgets for AAA games are. (Needless to say, I'm with Crossbar on this)

Considering the rumored budget/final budge for this title (20-40 million euros excluding marketing), I would imagine Sony was probably hoping for closer to 4-5 million than 1-2 million. But that would just be my guess. It's entirely possible I suppose that someone OK'd a large budget for an average sell through.

Second one is another question of interest. Take RE5 for example, the sequel to the best game of previous generation according to some, definitely much stronger franchise than KZ and many congratulated Capcom on sales. Yet PS3 version isn't doing much better than KZ2. This holly quest to understand and classify PS3 users is welcome as ever, but it feels like some people are trying just too hard without solid statistical evidence.

True RE5 on PS3 had similar numbers for Mar 09 as KZ2 did for Mar 09+2 days. But that would ignore the fact that it also sold close to 1 million units on X360. It also ignores the fact that KZ2 sold for a week longer than RE5. 7 days could be quite a bit of sales...

It would be perhaps more fair to compare only Mar 09 numbers for KZ2 and RE5 in which it did far worse with still 3 days more worth of sales. But then that would be unfair to KZ2 since it ignores the large boost day 1 sales usually has.

In the end they may be close but I'd say with 7 less days worth of sales RE5 performed quite a bit better on PS3. Add to that the cost of developement is split across 2 platforms and you've got a significantly higher ROI for the title.

Regards,
SB

 

[Crossbar]

It's highly stylized, not realistic. It looks pretty good IMHO but nothing like the real world, or even your average movie (which is already larger than life).

Which other FPS game or game in general is comparable in your opinion?
I was using the word "visual realism" in an attempt to include character and battlefield animations and physics as well. I´ve just played the demo, but I´ve never sensed a stronger feel of being part of real action. For example the character animations of COD4 totally kills it for me.

 

[joker454]

What was Sony's expectation of KZ2 sales?
What sales would make this thread irrelevant?

To spend the money they did means they expected this title to be a game changer, so 3+ million at least. To expect any less is folly I'd say. The thing with such a high profile title is that is has ramifications far beyond GG and Sony. When you spend that much and try all this new tech, all eyes will be on you to see what happens. Lots of us consider this route but almost always chicken out because of the costs and risks. Now GG+Sony have gone ahead and done it. Sony needed the result to be a grand slam, but it wasn't. The effect now is that we all feel justified not only in not having taken the high risk KZ2 approach, but the odds of us reconsidering it in the future are very low. In comparison, Capcom is a great model to follow, the put out great product in reasonable time for reasonable cost, and on three platforms. My hats off to them, that is a successful model we would all love to emulate.

Take RE5 for example, the sequel to the best game of previous generation according to some, definitely much stronger franchise than KZ and many congratulated Capcom on sales. Yet PS3 version isn't doing much better than KZ2. This holly quest to understand and classify PS3 users is welcome as ever, but it feels like some people are trying just too hard without solid statistical evidence.

RE5 will come to PC, so you have a certain chunk of people that will wait for that. The 360 version runs better than the PS3 version, and most everyone online in Live has a headset making co-op mode more fun, so two system owners will likely go for the 360 version. A chunk of the PS3 owners don't game on it, they only play blu-ray movies, so they won't consider it. Whatever is left is the PS3 market for this game. It's unfortunate that we can't get an accurate number as to how many PS3 owners use it only for blu-ray movies, but i suspect that number is much higher than expected.

 

[Crossbar]

If Sony knew and intended that, and still invested comparable amounts of money into the game, then that was fiscal suicide...

Well that is my opinion as a parent, but I am sure Sony knows that putting up posters all over the city with devilish red eyes and the text "Their home, your hell" will not have the same broad appeal as a poster of a man in a glossy space suite together with "Finish the battle".
But being an FPS it still has a pretty broad appeal for the hardcore market which is pretty mature in the case of the PS3 anyways.

But hey, as has been said before in this thread, we don´t know how much money they put into the game and we don´t how they plan to make the money back, they may already have done that from sales alone, we know jackshit.

 

[obonicus]

And that's where you're completely wrong IMHO.

Just look at the advertisments of these games. Both Halo and Gears trailers, posters, and other artworks feature the main character a lot, they're memorable, easy to identify with and in fact more then the generic space marine.
Everyone can recognize Marcus and Master Chief. They're pop culture icons by now.

Everyone who's a gamer, I hope you mean. By that token, anyone can recognize Helghans. They're quite iconic as well. No, Sev or Rico or Templar aren't that important -- the main character, the only constant in the game (you play like 5 different characters across 3 games) are the red-eyed enemies.

KZ's intention, and something they did a bit clumsily (but it's not like the other games we mention don't have clumsy narrative or attention to detail) is that it's more intended as a war game, like Call of Duty. You're not necessarily the protagonist in the larger conflict, even if, like in Call of Duty 4 you get more kills than Rambo across all three films. Some of the Killzone and Killzone Liberation ads did a better job of passing on the menace of the space nazis than the KZ2 ads, though I don't think I'd blame the sales on that. What's clumsy is that rather than making you something of a spectator, they make you more of a protagonist and source of drama (which is poorly done, naturally, since it is a videogame) On top of that, they don't make your companions likable enough to pull off that spectator thing -- I was more bummed by Griggs and Gaz getting killed at the end of CoD4 than I was at faceless marine me dying earlier on. But GeoW suffers from the same problem when it tries to be dramatic -- Kim and Carmine's deaths were so cliched as to be laughable. I would have preferred if Fenix had said 'You're huge! I bet you have huge guts!' to RAAM to establish motivation to kill him rather than have us pretend to care about Kim. And the least said about the Maria thing in GeoW2 the better.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say in a rambly fashion is that indeed, the Helghans are the focus. When KZ2 skins were announced for LBP, it wasn't ISA troopers they showed. Because they know what's most interesting about the game -- the Helghans stand out as the most unique visual aspect of the game, space nazis that they are. (I do suspect that being able to play as Helghan soldiers rather than the ISA would have worked better, but bygones etc.)

 

[dobwal]

There have been some, including Spore. However I don't think that alone matters. IMO the lull between KZ2's first showing and the pre-release hype dropped it off the mainstream radar, other than those relative who cared about the pre-console period and this game wondering where it was. It's not as if Sony have been hammering on about KZ2 for 4 years. Instead, there was the PR animation to showcase PS3, viewed and talked about in internet gaming circles but not badgering the mass-market with all things Killzone, and then nothing until a reasonable point ahead of the game's actual release. That is, the actual PR campaign - the dev quotes and making-of movies, the trailers, the ads - was very conventional, a similar timeframe to your typical high-visibility product AFAICS. Or certainly don't see much this past four years that was targeted at or reached some 15+ million non-internet following PS3 owners to bore them of this Killzone 2 game long before they had a chance tot buy it. What do you feel Joe Public was bombarded with to induce disinterest?

God of War sold 3 million to a userbase of 100 million. That's 3%! Relatively speaking, KZ2 has surpassed GOW's success with something like 7.5% adoption. Gran Turismo did do very well some years into the PS lifecycle, which only makes it an exception; not a rule. Other titles don't support the idea that a new IP can do proportionally well launched past the early entry point. Look at the top sellers across all platforms. They are invariably sequels or IP tie-ins. There will always be a few exceptions, but they are fringe cases and shouldn't be used as a basis of expectation. Just because one game can sell 10 million copies, doesn't mean all games can! About 2 million sales is good, and KZ2 may still get that in the long-run despite the relatively small install base.

What are you talking about? Are you being disingenious? Do you honestly think Halo4 if released on the 360 is going to maintain the same adoption rate as Halo3? You're going to tell me that GTA Vice City should be looked as less successful because its 17 million in sales (versus 14.5 million) catered to a much bigger market than GTA3.

We all know here that adoption rates tend to fall as a console's userbase get bigger as especially as one as dominant as the PS2. Its userbase becames too diversified to support any title with similar adoption rates seen during the first 1 or 2 years of release when the core gamers make a large proportion of the userbase and the library is much smaller.

Adoption rates have never been used over recognized sales as a measure of success, so to use it as a basis of your argument makes no sense to me. Does your belief that KZ2 was a bigger success than GOW2 extend to any game that was released during the time the PS2 userbase of 100 million that didn't achieve 7.5 million in sales?

That's still past the 'beginning'. I'd say the start of a gen is the first year or so, the end is the last two or three years when the next gen has launched, and everything in between is the middle. We could probably pinpoint an 'early period' looking at the average success of new IPs. If new IPs launching in the first 18 months tend to do better than new IPs launched after that window, then we can say the early days are the first 18 months. Regardless though, sales figures show us most games don't sell more than a couple of million, even to userbases in the many tens of millions, even > 100 million. And among the best-sellers-of-all-time, most, above 90%, are sequels or IP tie-ins with a previous market interest or launched in the first 18 months or whenever. This gen, the only games on XB360 that sold 3 million or more are Halo, COD, Gears, GTA, Assassin's Creed, Guitar Hero, Forza, and Lego Indiana Jones. Only one of those isn't an IP tie-in or sequel or wasn't a 'launch' (first 18 months) title, AC. And IIRC that had a lot of pre-release marketing! Extending the high-sales curve to about 2.5 million or me, we still see a lot of franchises. Kung Fu Panda, Fable II, Elder Scrolls IV, Guitar Hero II, Marvel:UA, Madden '08.

The launch period doesn't extend 18 months. I never seen anyone here desribe GTA3 or DMC as launch titles. The premier time as of late is to release a new IP or a remixed old IP is the second holiday after a holiday console release as GTA3, DMC and Gears found success releasing during this time. Games such as Halo has been the exception and not the rule because its been a long time since franchise other than Halo was a launch title and became a AAA title.

Looking at other systems, it's a similar story. New IPs launched past the launch window aren't to be expected to manage top-tier sales. They will manage a good, mainstream sell-through if they are successful. If you want to sell well above the odds, the 5, 6, 10 million units that every publisher would love, you either need a sequel or a ground-breaking launch title, or a lot of good fortune!
considerably more than 2 million sold on XB360 are

Gran Turismo is Sony premier franchise and it appeared 3 years after the PS1 was released. Now pick your poison, if GTA3 shouldn't be consider on the level of a new IP neither should COD4 as both began life on the previous generation while into the life of their respective console. If you do consider them similar to a new IP, then COD4 falls outside you 18 month launch period. What about MGS4? MGS was release 3-4 years after the launch of PS1 and Metal Gear was released 2-3 years after the launch of the NES. What about Final Fantasy? The FF1 was released outside your 18 month window for success and so was FF7 which moved the series into 3D.

You're twisting a phenomenom into something totally different. The phenomenom that titles released within the first 12 to 18 months have a better chance at sales volume due to the limited library and the userbase wanting to maximizing their experience with fairly new technology. Yes, Halo, DMC, Gears and GTA3 found success in the releasing very close to launch, but its not logical to conclude that launching very close to launch is the prominent factor in their success. Do you conclude that Halo, DMC, Gears and GTA3 become very regular titles with less sales because without early releases that and wouldn't be able to mimick the success seen with GT, Metal Gear, Final Fantasy, Gods of War or COD4, which didn't need to fall within a 18 month launch window?

 

[StefanS]

When trying to analyze the reason for the below expectation sales of Killzone 2, I think that one cannot point to a single factor behind it. In my opinion there have been several contributors.

1. Bad Timing:
First of all, Killzone missed the critical Christmas / End of the year sales period by a few months. This might have either due to delays (most certainly) or due to Sony feeling it might cannibalize their other franchises's sales during Christmas period (i.e. spreading out their release schedule). Fact of the matter is they missed their sales target. Moreover, with the economic crisis looming over people's mind, I think people might be far less likely to pick up a new console in order to play one game. In other words, the Killzone's potential to sell new console hardware declined as the economic crisis or the perception of it in the consumers mind grew stronger. There's a reason why sales of electronic products in general are down, IMO.

2. Marketing:
I have little to say on the topic of the marketing campaign itself, as I have yet to see a single spot. But it seems that some people were "disappointed" by the spots. Some in this thread, it didn't stress the graphics enough, some said it neglected to produce an iconic figure which symbolized the franchise and which people identified with. Fact of the matter is however, that the game has been touted around for about 4 years, wearing out it novelty factor quite a bit.

3. Shortcomings:
I haven't played it, so I am going to rely on forum impressions here. But apart from a bit controversial controls, KZ lacks a key component for modern FPS, a decent online modus. It has no coop (which would make it less appealing for me at least) and has some issues with its other modes (Lag has been cited quite a bit; but also other issues have been named). While the second part can be adressed via updates (also rebalancing classes), the damage in the mind of the online gamers might be irreversible; i.e. once people have set their mind on not buying changing their opinion (by an update) might be next to impossible.

4. Hype and Graphics:
I know you're probably thinking that this paragraph will focus on the E3 2005 trailer, but you guessed wrong. That topic has been discussed to death. Plus I am not sure if it even impacted the mainstream consumer in any way.
However, I want to focus on something else here. Killzone's graphical advantage over competitor products be on the same platform be it on the X360 has been declining steadily. As products got refined over time, its graphical advantage relative to other games seems to have decreased. Gears of War got an update with GeoW2, etc. It just not as impressive anymore (I am deliberately leaving PC games such as Crysis etc. out of the discussion here). Surely there's some new eyecandy in Killzone but overall the gap has grown a lot smaller. In fact, I am pretty sure that the average mainstream consumer probably can't tell the visual at all.

So in the end I think it has to a little bit to with all of those factors. It's a product that is not perceived to be leaps and bounds ahead of the competitors (you might say that the marketing contributed to this as well) released at a bad time with some flaws for the hardcore online gamers (another consumer key group in the market of FPS).