There's some weird logic going around here. KZ2 didn't do well because Sony didn't market it properly? The only reason it's being stated that it wasn't marketed properly is because the sales aren't as high as people hoped/expected. Maybe if they hadn't marketed the way they did, it would have been a complete bomb? Unless someone can point out very obvious gaffs in the marketing plan, I don't see how anyone could say it didn't receive a huge amount of exposure in the gaming press, and a good amount of exposure to the general public through tv adverts. The game had to succeed on its own merits, so it has sold exactly as many copies as it "deserved" to sell.
NPD March 2009
- Thread starter RobertR1
- Start date
I like to see sony press the panic button a 'lil, stop acting all its part of de plan confidente and definitely stop wasting press time by bad mouthing your competitor (*cough we dont buy exclusives *puke*). It looks arrogant to the mainstream and desparate to the forums crowd.
You know times are bad and we, owners and developers, need some reassurance that repairs are being carried out!
You know times are bad and we, owners and developers, need some reassurance that repairs are being carried out!
Call of Duty was the more remarkable case, since they went from a solid franchise to a monster one. And the sales pattern was really one of word of mouth pushing the game months past its release, a rarity for shooters. Gears 1 also had legs, it showed up all the way into the February 2007 NPD. Gears 2 vanished after December, though it had a bigger launch (on a much bigger install-base). Which of course highlights the importance of a MP mode for a title's longevity.
Halo 3 is... Halo. Its success derives from being the best implementation of an FPS on console to date, and from being the Xbox's by far best launch title. Halo 3 also had the most ridiculous ad campaign ever, too -- the hype was so enormous that even I went to a midnight launch, and I don't even like Halo. Don't forget that Halo 3 did a huge number of its sales (the bulk of the first month, I think) on the first day. Quality is a factor for people to still play and buy it, sure.
Scott I get what you're going for, but I don't agree with the absolutism of your final statement. That's like saying Gears or Halo sold as many copies as they 'deserved' to sell, and if we do leave it at that, then did those games 'deserve' to sell 5-10x more than Killzone 2? And if so, why?
It's not all marketing... but it's not all any other one thing either. There's a lot of variables in play for these things. Intangibles across a wide range definitely do come into play, and if we have trouble agreeing on it for Killzone, I bring the other two game examples into it because I feel we should all more or less agree with those. Mania does play a role - Sony tried to create/harness it for this title, and they seemingly failed. For my part, I think timing and pacing affected this.
To go retro, frankly I think LBP should have launched a year earlier and been available through the PSN to boot. Sony has a habit of front-loading news/hype and falling behind their implied (or stated) launch timelines. It hurts things. I myself lost interest in LBP a year after being hugely excited, but eventually picked it up when I got it on sale.
This isn't absolutely true. There are games that sell well despite their own quality -- Assassin's Creed is the best example. Extremely mixed reviews, a furious backlash, but it sold incredibly, especially for a new IP. Maybe people expected that from Sony for KZ2, I don't know -- like I said earlier, even though I -liked- AC I can't figure out why exactly it did -so- well. And no, I don't think crusaders are an explanation. Maybe show more in-game graphics, like Carl has said? Focus on the 'omg yes this could be you playing!' aspect of them? The visual presentation is really the main selling-point, much like with Gears of War, or, again, AC.
That seems really hard specially if exclusives keep failing to atract atention.
In fact many console exclusives are failing to do that IMO, most of the interesting games are on PC anyway (and a PC to run it, as good, will cost euqal or less than a PS3).
I can understand people saying a game got short changed if it didn't get any press or advertising at all - a good game that the publisher decided wasn't worth mentioning. If a game gets heavy exposure like Killzone 2 and it ends up at 1 or 2 million, then I can't see how anyone could say it deserved more. Why do Halo, Gears and COD deserve to sell more? I can't say exactly, because that is different for each person that bought a copy. There isn't a collective reason, exactly, though you'd probably find commonality in the individual reasons. People evaluate the product by word of mouth, reviews, ads, demos, playing at their friends house, playing in the store or whatever. Some way or another, more people thought those other games fit their needs better than Killzone 2. The sales don't lie. I could list off the reasons why I think those other games did better, and I did mention my feeling that multiplayer is the big one, but it would just turn into an argument of KZ2 vs game x, y and z.
Those two games did have innovative things beside gfx, or at least the first good implementation of underused features.
I think you're overanlyzing. You can't look at a checklist and necessarily compare products. Sure, I didn't think Assassin's Creed is a game without problems, or a fantastic game, but if enough people think it's ok enough to buy, then suddenly you've sold a lot of games.
Well not even show more graphics - I meant Sony should actually run an ad with a bunch of quotes all over like "best graphics ever" - beat people over the head with the message, rather than leave it up to individual interpretation. I mean I need to know why I should be interested; dark gritty war theme? Well... I've got one or two of those already, or maybe I just don't like what I see. But wait, you're telling me it's "the best?," well maybe I need to check it out then!
A lot of people don't know what they think until they're told what to think - so tell them what to think at least, or what angle they should be considering your product from.
Did they think it was ok enough to buy before or after playing it though? And I think the observations that underlie that are what leads to the desire for analysis when we see similar, but divergent, outcomes across games of a similar 'class' of forum interest.
Yes, and if someone were to say 'why hasn't Lost Odyssey or the Last Remnant sold gangbusters' I'd make the same case
What wasn't clear in my original post was that I was excluding the 'must have' genre fans, talking about the larger market because the thread of discussion was why KZ2 hasn't done well, despite selling well over a million copies! That kind of 'well' is abnormal, and requires an abnormal game that appeals beyond the genre markets. The reality is KZ2 has performed as well as a normal shooter could be expected, but hasn't expanded into into the Big League, and some are suggesting this is a fault of the PS3 userbase not buying games or the like. My suggestion is that their expectations are too high. Their hopes of 5+ million sales for this title, or any title, are not realistic. The few games that do manage such high sales are either launch titles (Gears) or titles that have developed a franchise since launch (Halo). I cannot think of any AAA game that has been released mid-generation to sell to a significant percentage of the userbase. These are VGChartz numbers for XB360 and PS3. Do you see any games that showcase how a AAA title should be expected to sell many millions without being a franchise of some sort? Assassin's Creed is the only significant entry. The rest of the top performers are mostly launch titles or franchises. Reality is most games sell well under 10% of the userbase, and if you hit 10%, you're doing exceptionally well. The company KZ2 is keeping are all sequels! Uncharted and LBP are the only higher-than-usual PS3 titles; Bioshock and Mass Effect did fairly well for being new IPs on XB360. The rest are established. The likes of Mirror's Edge, Viva Pinata, Dead Rising, Too Human, Heavenly Sword, Army of Two, Dead Space, etc. show a precendent for new IPs not to do exceptionally well mid-generation.
I agree with everything you said, however, Halo 3 marketing or hype has nothing to do with the fact that ~350,000 people are online every day to still play the game nearly two years after release. Not to mention it is still charting occasionally.
Hence my point.... marketing is not going to make or break a franchise like KZ2 or Halo 3 or CoD4-5-6... quality MP gameplay elements, integration with the community and your friends making you feel like you want to participate in it with them do that.
Sure, and that's why Gears continued to sell all the way into February. It opened selling 1 million copies in a month on the 360's 2006 userbase. But the 'Madworld' ad? That was all graphics. It doesn't even capture the game's thematics, unless you buy into CliffyB's 'destroyed beauty' spiel.
Yes, but are you saying that AC would have sold what it sold without an incredibly aggressive marketing push by Ubi? I think that what people wanted for KZ2 would be for Sony to treat the game like MS treats Halo. Which is preposterous -- we can yell at Sony for that if they screw up GT5's marketing (which they probably will, by showing a penis driving a GT-R or something).
I'm saying it didn't sell as well as Sony or GG would have hoped because it wasn't desirable to potential customers. Good is too subjective a word.
I thought it was pretty good, and I don't regret buying it, but I thought the multiplayer was trash. I can't answer for anyone else.
Do you think Gears would have sold as well as it did if KZ2 had launched on XB360 two years earlier? If the timings had been reversed, do you really feel KZ2 would have sold 2 million and Gears 5? It's a matter of the right product at the time, in all industries. You can help your case with marketting, but if your product stinks or the competition is plentiful, you'll have a very hard job beating the norms.
As an example, this guy made hundreds of thousands of dollars on a mediocre iPhone game. Why'd he sell so many when better games haven't? Because he was there offering the market a product when no-one else was, so they bought it. If exactly the same game launched now against the current saturated market of iPhone games, do you really think he'd have made as many sales? Sales aren't a direct indicator of game quality.
Shifty, so what I'm getting from your post is that it's too late for Sony no matter what they put out?
The reason I expected KZ2 to do better, heck I predicted it would hit a million in March, was that it was being pushed hard from Sony since 2005. Sony keeps talking about its brand and fan loyalty, but it appears that it is not being reciprocated by sales numbers.
The reason I expected KZ2 to do better, heck I predicted it would hit a million in March, was that it was being pushed hard from Sony since 2005. Sony keeps talking about its brand and fan loyalty, but it appears that it is not being reciprocated by sales numbers.
They deserve to sell better than KZ2 because they are better games. For all the flack Halo 3 takes on forums, people seem to miss that the underlying game is a riot to play, especially multiplayer. Same with Gears, co-op mode is just plain fun, it's worth the price of admission just for that.
I think the insane forum hoopla surrounding KZ2 has skewed people sales expectations. If we are to believe the internet, then the only game that matters is KZ2, and the only game people will want to play is KZ2. As usual though the forums have little basis in reality. Simply put, there are just many games out there that are better than KZ2. Simple as that, no need to spin or skew it.
It does not have the best graphics out there. Yeah that's always controversial to say on the internet...but try an independent focus test and see where KZ2 falls, you may be surprised, or possibly shocked.
It does not have the best control. Why they chose to go with a controller stuck in cement feel is beyond me, but going against the grain in the fps world was an odd choice.
It does not have the best multiplayer. People will constany say "yeah but it's free", but so is a Ford Pinto. Multi player issues in an fps game just won't cut it today.
It does not have the best game play. The game brings nothing new to the table.
It does not have the best brand pedigree.
Hence, it's selling as expected. None of the above implies that the game is bad, but I can't see why people are shocked that it's not selling millions. To a certain extent I agree with Scott_Arm. Sure marketing helps, etc, but in the end it's selling exactly as much as the market deems it worthy of.
Well, Gears and Killzone2 came out in completely different years. You might as well ask if Killzone2 would have been a big hit if it come out the same year as Doom. Gears 2 is pretty recent, and if Killzone2 had come out on the same day I think Gears2 would have outsold it by a very wide margin. I can't dispute the popularity of that title. People aren't buying it just because there isn't anything else to play. Halo3 would trounce all of them 24/7 any year. I just played through Halo3 for the first time a week ago, never played Halo2 and didn't like Halo much when I played it. I thought Halo3 was pretty solid and worth playing in co-op. I wouldn't have played it in single-player, just so everyone knows I'm not a fanboy.
Sure, game sales will impact each other. I won't dispute that. Relative to what is out there now, I don't think Killzone2 was extremely desirable. If it was extremely desirable, more people would have bought it.
Sure, game sales will impact each other. I won't dispute that. Relative to what is out there now, I don't think Killzone2 was extremely desirable. If it was extremely desirable, more people would have bought it.
