NPD March 2009

[Scott_Arm]

Does no one else think the Killzone brand is just tarnished?

Am I the only one who played the original?

I don't know so much about being tarnished. I just think people don't know or care about the brand itself. The game had to succeed on the merits of graphics, innovation, gameplay, marketing.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

HW does have the avantage of brand and being the only(?) RTS made for consoles this gen.

There are some others, some EA LOTR game and Command & Conquer 3.

 

[pc999]

There are some others, some EA LOTR game and Command & Conquer 3.

True, but I should have said no PC ports (and somewhat simplified and adapted) RTS, my fault. I guess PC ports are mostly for those who relly like but cant play it on PC and even if that mean harder time playing the game they will get it on the console.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Do you really believe that?

Yes, too much competition.

I think the easiest way to explain the sales is to look at the game. Solid game. Doesn't bring anything new to the table, but has market friendly graphics. Multiplayer is a failure. The last point probably most easily explains the sales.

Exactly. There are lots of other shooters that people can buy instead. I'm sure broken multiplayer has capped sales to a degree, but at the end of the day why would anyone who already has one of the plethora of other shooters want to buy KZ2? It's a generic product without a USP to catapult it to stardom. There are also upcoming titles do distract fence-sitters. Haven't got KZ2 yet? Why not wait for MAG...?

 

[Scott_Arm]

Yes, too much competition.
Exactly. There are lots of other shooters that people can buy instead. I'm sure broken multiplayer has capped sales to a degree, but at the end of the day why would anyone who already has one of the plethora of other shooters want to buy KZ2? It's a generic product without a USP to catapult it to stardom. There are also upcoming titles do distract fence-sitters. Haven't got KZ2 yet? Why not wait for MAG...?

So, is the problem that there are too many shooters and Killzone2 is getting burried, or is it that Killzone2 is pretty good, but not good enough to rise to the top like other big hits have?

Everyone expected it to be a big hit, and it sure seemed to be positioned to end up that way, and the only way I can explain it is a problem with the game itself.

 

[patsu]

The fact that Sony-published titles are consistently underperforming, even relative to install base points to a deeper problem. What was supposed to be a strength for Sony has hardly been a factor from a business standpoint and that points to either the "first party first" strategy being a poor one or being a poorly-executed one.

Sony's first party titles were planned to define the PS3 platform experiences. There are also technical requirements to share technologies to other PS3 devs. I see many titles have non-traditional themes. Some push the envelope in risky ways or even abandoned proven formulae (e.g., Afrika, Folklore's and Lair's SIXAXIS, LBP's user generated levels, KZ2's cinematics and "weighty" controls, etc.)

In the end, not all of them are well-received (In fact, most aren't if we judge by sales volume). Some of them will perform badly even on 360 because the chosen themes or implementation approaches are unpopular/off-beat amongst hardcore gamers. At the same time, it takes time for the devs to polish the innovations (e.g., LBP will take 1-2 more iterations to perfect).

The other problem I saw was business mistakes. e.g., Insomniac abandoning R1 user base completely, KZ2 lacks a party system, ... As a result, growth was stunted.

I don't think the problem is with Sony's first party strategy. If they can tune their efforts based on user needs/demands, they should do better. The first party innovations does separate PS3 from 360. Without which, both consoles would be too similar.

It's something they have to be careful though. If they dominate PS3 game sales, then people will cry Nintendo. Nonetheless, if they managed to work out the kinks, the first party franchises can be a great competitive asset.

It's also worth noting that third-parties (the exclusive MGS4 included) don't seem to be having the same problems selling to expectations relative to install base.

Not all. Valkyria Chronicles is innovative and entralling, but it doesn't sell well in US. OTOH, something like LBP may help to anchor the casual market should (i) PS3 price drops, and (ii) Media Molecule improve the formula for casual gamers. A bigger success can be built on smaller one(s). It took CoD 4 tries, and Halo started 1-2 iterations on the Mac first.



The other Sony problems are age old:
* Wasting/duplicated resources
* Untimely, unfocused development
* Delivery based on technical schedule instead of market demand

These issues prevent Sony from simplify the PS3 user experiences. They may also slow down deployment of future technologies.


Finally, these sales numbers are the final outcome. But they also embody marketing influences. As a casual observation, I remember seeing Microsoft dropping prices to promote sales via various retailers. Sometimes, this is done when Sony launches a new competing IP. At the end of the day, if Sony is after profitability chiefly, their playbook will be limited.

 

[obonicus]

Since they are not competing in the handheld area, it's very logical for them to look only at console games sales.

Then why not remove Wii * games from the list as well? MS isn't competing with those either. In fact, the Wii's not competing with anyone, at this point. MS is just competing with Sony, while Sony, alas, is competing with Nintendo and MS.

I think it's fairly obvious once you see a single screenshot of that game. Everyone is familiar with the historical setting and I'm sure everyone as a child/teenager was fascinated with crusaders. Take little to zero non-strategy games set in medieval and absolutely spectacular recreation of cities from that era and you get a title that resonates with everyone.

I highly doubt that. That's like saying that everyone's fascinated with pirates. Sure, some people like them, but I hardly think enough to push a game as far as AC was pushed. The graphics certainly help, as did the initial imagery that you were going to be some sort of daytime ninja.

@assurdum:

I wasn't really being serious.

 

[BadTB25]

My theory is that PSN is just not good at getting your friends excited and talking about the next big thing.

If KZ2 can be explained as shooter fatigue despite its graphics and technology, what about LBP and MS2. LBP could be considered niche, but MS2. It's a graphically impressive racing game that is a follow up to a successful prequel. Then there is Resistance 2. Other shooters sold well in the same time frame (L4D, WAW), why not R2. It's a shame though, because the games mentioned appear to be very good games with impressive critical reviews.

The above does not explain while 3rd party games in the genre are doing OK though.

IMO, Live because of its "standard" implementation across all games does a much better job of community. I know when I'm playing with friends or in a party, the subject typically comes up of what games we are anticipating. It doesn't always convince me to purchase a game, but it does provide a little bit of friendly peer pressure. The Legendary pack for Halo 3 is a good example of our group "convincing" others to make a purchase.

Maybe its time Sony re-thought how PSN and XMB is implemented. Home doesn't appear to be the answer--I know a lot of people on it really like it, but the majority are not bothering with it. I've only been on it a few times and each time I can not find a compelling reason to stay on.

Some will point out the price of the PS3, but that doesn't explain why the current owners are not buying these games.

 

[patsu]

My theory is that PSN is just not good at getting your friends excited and talking about the next big thing.

...

IMO, Live because of its "standard" implementation across all games does a much better job of community. I know when I'm playing with friends or in a party, the subject typically comes up of what games we are anticipating. It doesn't always convince me to purchase a game, but it does provide a little bit of friendly peer pressure. The Legendary pack for Halo 3 is a good example of our group "convincing" others to make a purchase.

You can do the above in any in-game lobby or the new XMB chat room. I bought assorted stuff after talking to folks this way.

Maybe its time Sony re-thought how PSN and XMB is implemented. Home doesn't appear to be the answer--I know a lot of people on it really like it, but the majority are not bothering with it. I've only been on it a few times and each time I can not find a compelling reason to stay on.

Yes, Sony needs to integrate Home or the XMB comms facilities better.

Some will point out the price of the PS3, but that doesn't explain why the current owners are not buying these games.

It explains the hardware numbers, which will affect the software numbers

As for people not buying current games, I think it'd be more interesting to look at the full spectrum of games. Some of the ones I bought are not charted

 

[Cheezdoodles]

LBP could be considered niche, but MS2. It's a graphically impressive racing game that is a follow up to a successful prequelThen there is Resistance 2. .

Resistance 1 and Motorstorm 1 sold the amounts that they did, mostly because of lack of software competition.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

So, is the problem that there are too many shooters and Killzone2 is getting burried, or is it that Killzone2 is pretty good, but not good enough to rise to the top like other big hits have?

I'd say both in measure. If KZ2 was one of only three shooters, it'd be selling gangbusters. If it was the greatest game ever conceived, it'd be selling gangbusters. As a good game in a sea of good games, after two years of good shooters, it's a medium sized fish in a big ocean.

Look the games KZ2's sales are being compared to and identify why they have the success they have. Timing and reputation count for a lot. Is there any other shooter that's been released without either being a launch title or having a huge reputation (often as a result of following on from a launch title!) that has gone on to landmark sales?

 

[patsu]

Motorstorm is fun for casuals. May be the hardcore guys really hate rubber-band AI ?

R2 is completely different from R1. It's hard to tap on R1 momentum in R2.

 

[Asher]

Then why not remove Wii * games from the list as well? MS isn't competing with those either. In fact, the Wii's not competing with anyone, at this point. MS is just competing with Sony, while Sony, alas, is competing with Nintendo and MS.

Wii and 360 are home gaming consoles that are definitely competing.

MS does not manufacture or market a mobile gaming solution.

It's a really simple distinction that logically makes sense. Nintendo doesn't make PMPs either, so it wouldn't make sense for MS to include its Zune hardware sales to compare against Nintendo's Wii either.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Yes, too much competition.
Exactly. There are lots of other shooters that people can buy instead. I'm sure broken multiplayer has capped sales to a degree, but at the end of the day why would anyone who already has one of the plethora of other shooters want to buy KZ2? It's a generic product without a USP to catapult it to stardom.

Please.

While you may not particularly like shooters, and therefore cannot understand why anyone would buy another shooter when allready owning some, most fans of this genre would look at it differently. And if you consider that this genre is by FAR the most popular genre on both X360 and PS3....

Why do people who own Madden 07 buy Madden 09?

Why do people who own racing games buy more racing games?

The same broken logic can be applied to ANY genre, why would anyone who owns a couple rpgs buy another one?
(dont give me any crap about rpg's games being more different or something, for fans of each genre, all of these games have a totally unique feel (atleast the good ones) for non-fans, its all pretty much the same)

There are also upcoming titles do distract fence-sitters. Haven't got KZ2 yet? Why not wait for MAG...

Lol. I find it hard to believe that fans of a genre will pass on a good game because some totally unproven, unhyped game is coming out in 6-12 months time.

 

[BadTB25]

Resistance 1 and Motorstorm 1 sold the amounts that they did, mostly because of lack of software competition.

What other good racing games came out at the same time as MS2. Pure?

My point is that these are good games that should be selling despite the competition. From what I recall, they appear to be better scored than the competition or at least on par.

At patsu, yes in-game lobby or the new XMB chat room is available now, but the chat was only added recently right?

Regarding KZ2, how does it explain why the people who have already paid for the hardware price not buying the software? Out of all the current owners, a quick approximation is that less than 1/10 (probably more) bought the game. Understandable for most games, but this is a flag-ship title.

Frankly, I'm just throwing theories out there because I can't find a good rationale to explain it myself. At the same time, I still can not explain why the Wii continues to sell. I have friends with a Wii, and they can't explain it either. About 40% regret the purchase, but at the same time would recommend it to a friend for purchase.--blows my mind

 

[Cheezdoodles]

What other good racing games came out at the same time as MS2. Pure?

So what? Point here is that at the time of the release of MS2, there where many racing games avaliable. At the time of the PS3 launch, there was only MS1 (and maybe some random EA game).

 

[Carl B]

Well the March NPD's are here, my how time flies.

Didn't take long for the thread to go the usual route of: PS3 - discuss!

Sony didn't market KZ2 right, but that's just one aspect of a larger picture - I'll point to my own comments in previous threads on the matter to emphasize titles like RE5 and SF4 catering more to the "traditional" PS demographic, and a title like Halo Wars drawing great strength from the Halo name.

The super-early reviews were a big mistake on Sony's part, and whatever their attention when they came out, they lost interest. There would have been more impact with the typical 2 days early "big game" style. As for the world and name, nobody cares about it. They should have hyped up "best graphics ever." That's the advertising message by the way, not what I believe or want discussed.

I agree with what some above have said - for someone that already owns FPS' in worlds/settings they're interested in, how does Sony pull them into KZ? I say they should have been blatant on the graphics angle, because it's the only 'hook' I see.

Anyway it's no big deal - truly several of us were thinking sales would "only" be "decent." But they are decent. The game will make Sony money, and it'll sell over 1M worldwide no question. So it is what it is, another quality 1st party title under the belt. It's not the game-changer some may have hoped for or expected, but it's a step forward in the library vs a step back.

As for Motorstorm... well, Motorstorm 1 was a great game, but the sequel? I don't know, just didn't appeal to me; seemed almost like an identical experience with different scenery. They should have had split-screen co-op in the first title; I don't think I ever got past that deficiency.

 

[BadTB25]

So what? Point here is that at the time of the release of MS2, there where many racing games avaliable. At the time of the PS3 launch, there was only MS1 (and maybe some random EA game).

No I understand that there were other games available, but you'd figure a game like MS2 would sell well compared to its competitors. I figured that the people that bought the first game would be more inclined to buy its sequel than a new IP.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Sony didn't market KZ2 right, but that's just one aspect of a larger picture - I'll point to my own comments in previous threads on the matter to emphasize titles like RE5 and SF4 catering more to the "traditional" PS demographic, and a title like Halo Wars drawing great strength from the Halo name.

The super-early reviews were a big mistake on Sony's part, and whatever their attention when they came out, they lost interest. There would have been more impact with the typical 2 days early "big game" style. As for the world and name, nobody cares about it. They should have hyped up "best graphics ever." That's the advertising message by the way, not what I believe or want discussed.

First, every time I read 'SF4' I think, WOW! There's a new Soldier of Fortune game out? I need to go get that immediately.

Second, I keep reading a great deal on here about blaming Sony's marketing for the poor performance of KZ2... and I don't understand that one bit. Their marketing campaign made KZ2 the first PS3 exclusive that made me actually consider purchasing a PS3.

Now, I had issues with it, for example.. Lack of in-game footage in the advertisements. But there were plenty of advertisements that made the game seem very attractive.

The reason I didn't buy? Cost of entry - I needed a PS3, and as I was contemplating it, I heard negative reviews of the multiplayer aspect.. which was one of the main reasons I wanted it. To get that 'Huge multiplayer experience' that was promised that I haven't gotten on the 360 and haven't seen since PC gaming.

 

[deepbrown]

I don't think the US ad translated the game very well. It didn't need an arty look on the game - as it's not about art, it's about gritty exaggerated realism. A first person perspective gameplay video would have sold it much better. The arty ad could have been saved for PSN. Is that the only US ad they had?

Still - would there be less whirring if Sony had decided to release the game in March and not the end of February?