I guess that cinches it. Except we've been discussing this exact same thing with Scott for the last, what, 20 posts?
NPD March 2009
- Thread starter RobertR1
- Start date
I guess that cinches it. Except we've been discussing this exact same thing with Scott for the last, what, 20 posts?
Yes, as with everything it is possible to fail too. But I am not talking about controlling the market (more like controlling Sony).
The PS3 is priced high compared to the competition. Sony has been doing its own things without heeding competition's moves and potential customers' needs. The PS3 platform has too many overlapping or side developments. The individual title marketing efforts are rather fragmented and haphazard. There is no multiplier effect. They also have not worked well other divisions (except selling movies/TVs), or partner with strong external parties to deliver end user values. This is why Sony appears stagnated despite heavy development efforts.
If they restrict themselves to some high vertical concepts (e.g., Differentiate via MMO games and Home community), they will probably fall flat, or achieve little impact. They will probably start with "redefining" Playstation for a restart. Then they will need lot's of external help (and $$$) to fill in the gaps.
The entire gaming industry is not exactly doing great. They need each other.
well certainly considering that KZ2 trailer debuted in 2005 and the game released in 2009 has something to do with it. The hype was HUGE and had they brought it at launch (or even 1 year in) it would have sold even better IMO.
I think this has been Sony's mis-step all along this gen. they were well under prepared to deliver the games in a timely manner. All of their hits should have been lined up to drop like Ms had... releasing expeditiously and frequently. the fact that a "proper" retail GT game (for example) has not yet been released on the platform is unbelievable to me.
they missed the hype train 2 years ago with a lot of this stuff. they should be on KZ3 by now. (which could be even better by now with all they would have learned in online gaming over two years)
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, obviously games sell as much as they are "desirable" which says nothing about the marketing or userbase demographic arguments.
You're missing the point, though. Yeah, Gears 2 would do well. By then it was a sequel to a successful game! Why Gears 1 did well is a different issue. The pattern of sales for Gears 2 is different from the sales for Gears 1, as I've pointed out a few times! Halo 3 as well -- Microsoft left nothing to chance there, they know that Halo their most valuable property. Sony didn't do the same for KZ2 -- they either didn't believe the 'halo-killer' hype the fans had dreamt up (which is likely) and treated it like just any other game. Either that, or they couldn't afford it.
I just want someone to tell me what was wrong with the marketing campaign for KZ2. There were ads all over tv. I know I saw them many times at home and at the gym, and I don't watch a lot of tv. In terms of gaming press, this game got a hell of a lot of attention (for years), and stellar reviews across the board. It was certainly advertised roughly as well as Assassin's Creed. Maybe not Halo, but Halo has deep pockets from prior success. Still, the advertising for Killzone2 should have been sufficient to let people know about the product and generate word of mouth.
Well, if Gears 1 had never existed and some other game exactly like Gears 2 came out on exactly the same day as Killzone 2, I think that game would outsell Killzone2. It's a product that people like. There isn't any trickery, and they aren't buying it by accident. They're aren't buying it because there isn't anything else to play, and they aren't accidentally buying it when there is something "better" out there. They know what the product is, and they like it. For whatever reason, Killzone2 didn't generate interest in the same way, but I'm not going to blame marketing when they had more ads than most games receive on tv, and huge amounts of gaming press for years on end. Demographics? No idea, but if they targetted a different demographic we wouldn't even be talking about the same product. The product we have in front of us wasn't executed in a way to generate blockbuster sales. I don't think people are unaware of the product. They've evaluated and their wallets have spoken.
Edit:
Do I think the product in our hands should have sold better? No. I expected it to sell a bit better, but I'm not surprised that it didn't.
They deserve to sell more because 5-10x more people wanted to buy them. If 8 million people wanted to buy KZ2 enough to drop $60 on it, then it would deserve to sell 8 million units.
I think entertainment needs an element of surprise. Movie producers know you can overdo it with trailers and make people feel like they've already seen everything they need to see, so that they don't go see the film when it debuts. You can do that with games, too. You need the maximum consumer desire for the game to come at or after the launch, not months before. I think Sony shot its wad with KZ2 hype long ago. In part, they did that themselves with that "render target" at E3, which kind of tired a lot of people out after a year of bickering about it.
But would that be enough? I don't know if it was sufficient or not, to be honest. The ad I've seen is sorta 'Madworld'-like. A graphics showcase, little to no actual gameplay. Should they have released reviews weeks before release? Should they have released a demo earlier on? Should they have made a better demo? Should they have done an MP beta? Gears could get attention with 'Madworld' because of the sparse release schedule for the 360 in late 2006. In 2007, MS made a hell of a lot of noise to let the world know that Halo was coming. Of course, in 2008 they were back with 'Madworld', though by then they had established a fanbase.
I think KZ2 could have done better, but because I'm a cynic who doesn't believe quality translates to sales. Again, it's not fantastic, but neither are games that sell a lot more. I'm not sure Sony should have bothered, though -- KZ2 was an uphill battle all the way, thanks to the lackluster first game and they've probably put enough money in this game.
MazingerDUDE
Regular
I'd be most interested, if you'd be more specific on KZ2 failure that will possibly shock us :smile:
I think there's that. They could have sold more if they had gone crazy, no doubt, maybe even more if they had done things differently. Maybe this has helped clear GG's name somewhat, maybe even the KZ franchise. Though the PS3 really doesn't need two first-party exclusive FPSs. I'd say to put GG on making Cogs of Battle, but that'd interfere with Uncharted. So maybe give them Jak & Daxter, while ND's busy.
Yes and no.
First of all, you're deriving your meaning of 'deserve' there as a retroactive rather than a preceding measure of merit, and tracking it directly alongside measurable performance.
I don't have a problem with that definition, if that's the definition we stick with. But the point I was making in broaching that front with Scott above is that part of the 'deserving' nature of these games - essentially the demand - is linked to marketing, and is linked to criteria beyond does x person find y game a good personal match.
You actually went on to make the point I myself was making with the rest of your post, rather than argue against it.
Am I personally going to be shocked, or... is it 'you' in a general sense?
Joker I have to protect you from yourself here again and ask that you not wander down the road you did in the OS footprint thread, where you were warning folk of the state of collapse their minds would go into if they knew of the deficiencies. I don't know what other forums you're enduring out there, but the discussion here isn't premised on the idea that KZ2 should have - or would have - or was deserving - of selling millions. For my part, I'm simply highlighting scenarios in which I think it would have done better.
If you want to disagree with that reasoning or my points, well bring it on, but I don't put KZ2 on any sort of alter so you needn't worry on destroying anyone's 'faith' in KZ2.
Actually, I'd be interested to know too. Might want to define the profile of the subjects in the focus group too.
I'm assuming from the way he worded it that he's implying casuals rated the graphics as poor?
MOAR! numbers: http://blog.wired.com/games/2009/04/march-2009s-top.html
360 doing well in the top 30. Go Halo! Live selling well in accessories.
360 doing well in the top 30. Go Halo!
Live selling well in accessories.Strange about Halo 3. Implies 360 hardware selling well I suppose? And the price drop to $39?
Love these top 10/20's..the numbers feel incomplete without them now.
Top 20:
360=7
Wii=4
PS3=4
DS=4
PS2=1
It's also funny if you ever actually look at the GBA titles...Van Helsing? Yeah methinks NPD could stop giving us that chart...
Love these top 10/20's..the numbers feel incomplete without them now.
Top 20:
360=7
Wii=4
PS3=4
DS=4
PS2=1
It's also funny if you ever actually look at the GBA titles...Van Helsing? Yeah methinks NPD could stop giving us that chart...
Last edited by a moderator:
I just saw MadWorld came in as #9 for Nintendo. Higher than what I expected. I guess that's why Sega said they were "pleased" ?
MLB 09 The Show seems to do very well for all Playstation devices (#1 or 2).
Live pre-paid cards are consumables (basically required by all purchased goods on XBL ?). Would be a disaester if it doesn't chart. I am more surprised by sales of nunchucks. How many of these do people really need ? Also where is the 360 controller on the chart ? Does every 360 come with 2 controllers ? (Or perhaps box was purchased by lonely gamers, as gifts or as second/third consoles)
That's my sense too. The KZ2 controls already imply that they are going after core gamers. The narrow field of vision, dark settings, dull colored environment and subtle body motion may throw people (especially casuals) off. Still, KZ2 is one of the best looking games around.
MLB 09 The Show seems to do very well for all Playstation devices (#1 or 2).
Live pre-paid cards are consumables (basically required by all purchased goods on XBL ?). Would be a disaester if it doesn't chart. I am more surprised by sales of nunchucks. How many of these do people really need ? Also where is the 360 controller on the chart ? Does every 360 come with 2 controllers ? (Or perhaps box was purchased by lonely gamers, as gifts or as second/third consoles)
That's my sense too. The KZ2 controls already imply that they are going after core gamers. The narrow field of vision, dark settings, dull colored environment and subtle body motion may throw people (especially casuals) off. Still, KZ2 is one of the best looking games around.
Am I personally going to be shocked, or... is it 'you' in a general sense?
Joker I have to protect you from yourself here again and ask that you not wander down the road you did in the OS footprint thread, where you were warning folk of the state of collapse their minds would go into if they knew of the deficiencies. I don't know what other forums you're enduring out there, but the discussion here isn't premised on the idea that KZ2 should have - or would have - or was deserving - of selling millions. For my part, I'm simply highlighting scenarios in which I think it would have done better.
If you want to disagree with that reasoning or my points, well bring it on, but I don't put KZ2 on any sort of alter so you needn't worry on destroying anyone's 'faith' in KZ2.
Well by 'forums' i mostly mean forums other than this one. This one is reasonably level, but elsewhere it's just madness. I once made the mistake of reading a comments section on n4g.com and damn, the imbecility per square inch was phenomenal.
Still though, B3D itself does stray into it sometimes. For example, you can read people complaining about KZ2 control issues, multi player issues, and so so single player campaign all over the net as well as on B3D, all of which are issues one would consider critical to the success of an fps today. Yet on the same said forums you have people wondering why it 'only' sold one million copies so far.
Given the intensely competitive nature of the fps market today, is it really that far of a stretch to think that maybe KZ2 just isn't as good as other games? I see people grasping at every possibly straw other than that to explain the sales numbers, even on this forum. I mean poor marketing? Really? Is there any PS3 owner still alive that hasn't heard of Killzone? Truth be told I never heard of the first one, but the second one is impossible to avoid even if you tried. But if word of mouth is control issues, multi player issues and so so single player campaign, then are the sales numbers really a surprise irregardless of marketing, time released, box art, planet alignment, etc, etc?
Rangers said:
Nah, no one saw it as poor and I don't think anyone can claim it's graphics are bad. It's a pretty game no doubt. But it's just not the second coming of Christ as it is made out to be. I did an informal focus group myself at work, shuffling some unknown people into a room, showing them some games, and having them pick their favorite purely on graphics. KZ2 was not put at #1. What I found interesting was that the results didn't match what I was expecting. What made it *very* interesting was that i threw an ancient 2006 game in there as a control of sorts, and it did way better than i expected as well. Just goes to show what we deem 'great graphics' isn't universal.
In case you are curious, that 2006 game was Kameo on 360. It's stone age to us, but it ranked well. Go figure
Nah, no one saw it as poor and I don't think anyone can claim it's graphics are bad. It's a pretty game no doubt. But it's just not the second coming of Christ as it is made out to be. I did an informal focus group myself at work, shuffling some unknown people into a room, showing them some games, and having them pick their favorite purely on graphics. KZ2 was not put at #1. What I found interesting was that the results didn't match what I was expecting. What made it *very* interesting was that i threw an ancient 2006 game in there as a control of sorts, and it did way better than i expected as well. Just goes to show what we deem 'great graphics' isn't universal.
In case you are curious, that 2006 game was Kameo on 360. It's stone age to us, but it ranked well. Go figure
Bah, random/casual personal preferences like this means nothing. The choice of games you show them already limited the responses. They may just be picking out their favorite art style out of 10-20 choices ?
