The "what is a successful game?"/"are exclusives worth it?" cost/benefit thread

[Laa-Yosh]

I don't see any reason to think this generation, Sony's first-party efforts should be outperforming their previous efforts.

The PS3 user base is drastically different from that of the PS2.
Microsoft has taken away some of the (more or less) hardcore gamers, that's one thing.
But Nintendo has taken over practically the entire casual market, and it seems that they've been about half the PS2 user base (so there still are a couple dozen million people up for grabs out there - hence Project Natal).

Casuals are almost entirely avoiding the HD systems and go for the Wii. This is IMHO one of the big lessons of this generation, where no system has a monopoly of the market - that PS2 was covering very different segments in one piece of hardware. Cooking games, date simulators, social games, Harry Potter and Pixar games - all sharing their platform with the GTAs and MGSs and GOWs. Clearly there's been no overlap between their target audiences. But this time we have a quite sharp division between these segments, because Nintendo was able to grab the casuals before either of the HD systems was able to build up enough momentum (the Wiimote obviously helped a lot though). It also means that they aren't safe from a cheap Xbox3 or PS4's attack either.

The main consequence is that the hardcore AAA games should sell to a far, far larger percentage of the PS3 user base then on the PS2, or more similar to how they are selling on the Xbox360, because their target audience is concentrated on these consoles. Titles should not be compared to the relative performance of their PS2 predecessors, but to their absolute sales. If there were 10-15 million people paying for GT games, then these people should still be present and they most likely did not buy a Wii for driving games. Sales of the GT5 prologue show that many of them have already bought PS3s; lots of MGS fans are on board as well; and there's no GTA4 for the Wii either.

The other consequence is that without opening up to the casuals, both HD consoles' sales potential is very limited (no surprise here, though).

Do you think if U2 were exclusive to XB360 it'd have sold 6 million? I don't!

It should have sold at least 4-5 million units IMHO; but the point is that it's probably the best PS3 game and it's a disappointment that people don't like it. In this case expectations were high because of the quality of the game.

I think the games Sony produces just aren't the sorts of games that can sell above 10% of install base, with perhaps the fringe exception of GT.

Then Sony shouldn't concentrate their development efforts on those kinds of games, as exclusives should have wide appeal to sell the console and make a large return on their investment.
If their goal is to call attention to their console using these exclusive titles, then knowingly limiting their appeal defeats their very purpose.

I think your expectations are too high, and you're comparing successful titles to phenominal titles.

It was not my expectations, it's the expectations of the market, the press, the industry and the general internet using public too. KZ2 should have been a massive success after all the media and the hype and the money that Sony invested in it. Selling only 2 million units after all what's happened is a disappointment in every possible way, I'm just the one who says it out loud.
Same can be said about a lot of the other exclusives as well, only MGS4 has really managed to live up to its role so far.

Also note that some of Sony's exclusives have started their decline on the PS2 already so it isn't a trend just for the PS3. People either don't care about them, or they don't care about sequels, or they stopped playing games completely.

I think the games MS produces aren't the sorts of games that can sell above 10% of install base, with the exception of their shooters and Forza.

Viva Pinata, Banjo Kazooie, Lost Odyssey, Blue Dragon, etc. are all MS investments that haven't sold >10% of install base. That's because it's hard!

Again, games can sell to more then 10% of the install base today, because both HD consoles have a far more limited and concentrated user base then the PS2.
The reason for their moderate success is that they are inferior to the Sony exclusives and 3rd party titles in some way - quality, budget, branding, production values. MS produced them mostly to cover their bases, except maybe the JRPGs which I consider to be spectacular failures too. They've also almost entirely abandoned this activity by now.
But MS also made sure to cover the most popular genres to make money and sell systems with their efforts as well, so not all their exclusives are disappointments. Gears and Halo were all hyped quite a lot just as the Sony counterparts, there was a lot of scepticism as well - but they've all managed to deliver too. We'll see how Alan Wake fares, I have my doubts about that title; and I'm pretty interested in post-Halo Bungie games as well.

And it's also worth noting that multiplatform titles of all genres sell very well on both platforms. So it's not as much about the audience as about the actual titles IMHO.

 

[Dregun]

We've already given plenty of reasons. Bluray playback, Sony brand, PS brand, less prone to hardware failure, free online play.

But then we also have to list the negatives that would discourage so many people from buying the console.

Price = As the PS-Slim has shown a lower price will sell more consoles.
PS Brand = The same people exist on the other end, Xbox fans and Nintendo Fans.
Content = The library of games available on the competition.
Blu-Ray = Some people (casuals) could care less about Blu-Ray

So many people say the reason they buy a console (many wii owners to be precise) is because of the software/games and not the "extra" non gaming functions. While I don't particularly believe this is true the fact that the PS3 was/is supposed to have some of my favorite games is why I bought the machine.

And let me please ask the opposite: if so many people supposedly buy the PS3 for its exclusives, why aren't they actually buying those games then?

They do buy the exclusives, in fact before the major price drop of the PS3 I think the tie in with MGS was one of the biggest pushers of the PS3. But to look at it another way, for each sale of those games could we say that was a purchase of PS3 for that particular title? Do the people who buy GT5 purchase the PS3 for the sole reason of being able to play that game when it was released?

In my opinon only; the main factors that people decide on the console to purchase are based on:

Games
Price
Features

Its the reason why the PS3 sold any at launch with its rediculous price tag, 360 was cheaper and had better games and ALMOST as many features (minus Blu-Ray). Call it Playstation loyalty if you want but being loyal to a console means your loyal to it because it has the content (or will have the content) you want to play.

If I didn't care about exclusives I would have never bought a PS3, I already had a 360 and while Blu-Ray was a nice addition it wasn't what sold me on the system...the old franchises did.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I think the games Sony produces just aren't the sorts of games that can sell above 10% of install base, with perhaps the fringe exception of GT. I think the games MS produces aren't the sorts of games that can sell above 10% of install base, with the exception of their shooters and Forza. That's because these genres can attract large audiences. Deviating from racing or shooters mean no chance of >10% sales, while of cause creating a racer or shooter doesn't guarantee >10% sales either!

It'll be interesting to see how Alan Wake does over the course of the year after it's launched. I also don't think it'll hit >10% of the userbase. But I think it'll be more due to the fact that it has no online play attraction to it. Without that, a game may sell well, but I don't think it'll get into blockbuster territory now days.

I'm not sure how well it will do myself. The hype on it has been a bit on and off. More off than on lately I think.

The other thing I think that affects people's expectations is that with the exception of Halo, Gears, and Fable, the X360 exclusives haven't had nearly as much hype or media attention as the PS3 exclusives thus far. And out of those Halo and Gears have pretty much had sales matching the hype of the game. Whereas, only MGS on PS3 has managed to meet the hype with excellent sales for the time it was released.

Perhaps unrealistic expectations, but it's expectations that were raised by both the online media as well as fans of the console.

But to the point, a successful game would be one that met sales expectations. Unfortunately, only the publisher of the game would know what the sales expectations were for the game. Other than that, any blockbuster would be an obvious success. Below that, it's harder to judge as there's no definitive numbers for budget, marketing, etc...

Regards,
SB

 

[Carl B]

...but the point is that it's probably the best PS3 game and it's a disappointment that people don't like it...

Do people who've played it not like it? Laa-Yosh if you don't want to be accused of baiting - don't bait!

Then Sony shouldn't concentrate their development efforts on those kinds of games, as exclusives should have wide appeal to sell the console and make a large return on their investment.

Sony is concentrating, so far as I can tell, on exactly the same genres that prove successful on the 360. I simply go back to my mindshare refrain; it's something that goes beyond marketing, reviews, forums, etc. Gears and Halo have it, some of these Sony titles don't. I think there is just way too much over-analysis in this regard, it is what it is, and to Microsoft's advantage.

Selling only 2 million units after all what's happened is a disappointment in every possible way, I'm just the one who says it out loud.

Well you're certainly saying it very loudly, I'll give you that.

I go back to: was it profitable? Killzone 2 may in fact have not been at the end of the day, I don't know. I do know that it seems a fairly popular attach 'buy' for those purchasing new consoles these past two months. But my point is... do we expect a Killzone 3? I think the answer is yes. So for all the disappointment it may or may not have caused, it has not caused so much that the franchise won't have another iteration. And that, to me, more than anything speaks to the thinking that financially the effort is deemed worth continuing.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Do people who've played it not like it? Laa-Yosh if you don't want to be accused of baiting - don't bait!

Don't put words into my mouth, please. All I say is that if something's the best of its platform, it should move more then 2.5 million units. Whatever the reason.

I think there is just way too much over-analysis in this regard, it is what it is, and to Microsoft's advantage.

I agree... people try to go to far too much length in explaining how Sony exclusives are selling well and as expected

I go back to: was it profitable? Killzone 2 may in fact have not been at the end of the day, I don't know.

At 50-60 million it's lucky if it's past the break even point. Not a good ROI at all and certainly not worth sinking that money into. They probably would've made more profit if they left it in the bank...

But look at it in another way, if I were to predict 2-2.5 million total sales for the game before its release, even just here on B3D and not on GAF, what would you think the response would have been? I've got flamed and roasted just for going against the general expectation of Snake's polygon count in MGS4, damn it, and I've actually been right with my estimate...

That's what I mean when I say it's way below expectations. And you can bet that SCE was expecting more from it, too.

But my point is... do we expect a Killzone 3? I think the answer is yes.

It's not because it sold well, it's because Sony wants to make a return on their huge investment in the engine technology and art assets and marketing. You can bet they're not gonna spend another 50 million bucks on KZ3, GG is lucky to get half of that.

 

[Carl B]

Don't put words into my mouth, please.

Well - I definitely didn't put words in your mouth. I may have known what you meant, but your word choice... which is that people didn't like the game... may have started something with some folk that I just wanted to head off.

At 50-60 million it's lucky if it's past the break even point. Not a good ROI at all and certainly not worth sinking that money into. They probably would've made more profit if they left it in the bank...

You and I have different ideas of what's worth effort and what's not, so we'll leave that at that. I *will* mention that leaving the money in the bank would probably not have yielded too much, but that's a topic for RPSC.

But look at it in another way, if I were to predict 2-2.5 million total sales for the game before its release, even just here on B3D and not on GAF, what would you think the response would have been?

There are some over-zealous people around here for sure. But I was predicting 'low' sales for the game as well; feel free to go back and read my posts on the matter pre-launch. Frankly I'm just saying the exact same thing now that I was then. But the point here is that just because a title falls short of expectations, does not mean that it is not a 'success' on a quantitative vs a qualitative basis.

It's not because it sold well, it's because Sony wants to make a return on their huge investment in the engine technology and art assets and marketing. You can bet they're not gonna spend another 50 million bucks on KZ3, GG is lucky to get half of that.

Sure, but they won't need another 50 million to begin with, right? And if KZ3 sells 2.5M or more... then we see that overall the effort was not just questionably worth it, it may have been decisively worth it. All *any* publisher can hope for in this industry is to breed a franchise that becomes a steady money-earner, whether blockbuster or otherwise.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Personally I've expected KZ2 to sell far better and even move systems. I was seriously surprised after the first NPD results came in.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

...The main consequence is that the hardcore AAA games should sell to a far, far larger percentage of the PS3 user base then on the PS2, or more similar to how they are selling on the Xbox360, because their target audience is concentrated on these consoles.

I agree with that reasoning. I think you've got a good point. However, I think this kinda shows that the PS3 audience is a bit of an odd one. It's not the PS2 casuals of last gen who are on Wii. It's not the hardcore AAA crowd who are mostly on XB360, because it launched first with headline grabbers, is cheaper, and offers a generally better gaming experience. PS3's demographics is therefore probably some eccelectic leftover segment, or mishmash. People who aren't PS2 casuals nor AAA hardcore, but who like the idea of a bit of gaming and a bit of HD movie watching and sorts.

It should have sold at least 4-5 million units IMHO; but the point is that it's probably the best PS3 game and it's a disappointment that people don't like it.

That's just the games market though! ICO should have sold more than it did. So should have Okami.

In this case expectations were high because of the quality of the game.

You could make the world's nicest ever Marmite-including sandwich and the half the people you offer it to wouldn't touch it. No matter what the quality and class of the game is, if it's not the right genre and experience, people won't buy it. Although U2 is a stellar title, unless there are examples of similar titles selling that much better (and Tomb Raider hasn't since PS1) I don't see a reason to think it could sell more than other top-tier titles. I just think the genres wrong. The sorts of games that sell gangbusters are quite different from the U2 experience.

Then Sony shouldn't concentrate their development efforts on those kinds of games, as exclusives should have wide appeal to sell the console and make a large return on their investment.[q/uote]That's possibly true, but it'd also mean making shooters and racers. They've got the racer in progress. Shooters are a very toughtly fought genre, and I think XB360 has that genre bagged too, so the most avid shooter diehards are on the other box, and there's nothing Sony can do about that now. And from where I'm sitting, that's pretty much it regards genres you can expect to sell significantly better than the usual.

But I'm gonna check the thread title again and make sure we're addressing the topic I spawned rahter than What Sony Got Wrong!

Again, games can sell to more then 10% of the install base today, because both HD consoles have a far more limited and concentrated user base then the PS2.

I think that's a plausible theory, but it's making an assumption about console users that doesn't match what's happening.

However, more pertinent to the thread, your suggesting a truly successful title is one that sells >10% of the user base, in contrast to previous generations? I'm unable to agree with that. I don't think gamers are more concentrated and easier to target. Perhaps specific genres are, like shooters and racers, and if you say a good shooter or racer should be selling well above 10%, I'll agree. But anything else, from U2 to Banjo to LBP to Demon Souls, 10% is about the best you can hope for on any platform, and achieving that is being very successful.

 

[aselto]

I think the bottom line of a title being commercially successful should be:
a) it's profitable
b) return of investment is reasonable. No need to make a game if you're better off keeping the money in the bank.

Since we're discussing the issue of Sony's titles' sales over again, I think we should keep several things in mind. Sony titles, unlike Nintendo games, compete directly with 3rd parties for the same consumer. And unlike what some people seem to think, Sony (and MS) are at a disadvantage here - multiplatform games at the end of the day get more publicity and word of mouth, simply because anyone can play them. Also, Sony has a very unpleasant manner of informing you that their game is only on PS3 and PS3 is awesome first, and then moving on to the game itself.

So really, the most Sony and MS can do is to cherish their most successful IPs and launch a new one every now and then. Also, branch out for markets not covered by 3rd parties. It'll be interesting to see what they do with the wands and Natal, but so far I only expect poor substitutes of Nintendo games.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

PS Brand = The same people exist on the other end, Xbox fans and Nintendo Fans.

PS brand was 120 million consoles last gen, top dog for two generations. MS and Nintendo's brands were decidedly weak by comparison, meaning only Sony really had the brand advantage this gen, save perhaps XB being strong in NA.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Shooters are a very toughtly fought genre, and I think XB360 has that genre bagged too, so the most avid shooter diehards are on the other box, and there's nothing Sony can do about that now.

And yet, Resistance has sold very well, COD games are always selling very well, and I expect the new MOH game to sell just as it does on the X360, too. Shooters aren't frowned upon by the PS3 user base either.

However, more pertinent to the thread, your suggesting a truly successful title is one that sells >10% of the user base, in contrast to previous generations?

Several games have already done that even on the PS3; GTA4, COD4 and MW2, AC1, MGS4, Resistance, Motorstorm... For a first party title to do well, I'd personally expect to see it among these on the top lists. And if you look at the X360, it has the above mentioned titles sitting right there, from Halo to Fable.
(Note: Motorstorm and Resistance are probably there because of all the bundles IMHO)

Although let's not make that 10% such a strict requirement... I'd consider a game really successful - in terms of sales - as soon as it makes a significant profit. We don't have exact budgets but we can make educated guesses and I'm sure we all agree that what's good from a Project Gotham is still not enough for a GT5. One of the reasons I consider the sales of PS3 exclusives disappointing is because of their usually high budgets.

 

[Dregun]

But is pure profit off of game development the only factor? Killzone 2 in my opinion did MUCH MUCH more for the PS3 than it's sales. The PS3 was under some heavy heat because the games didn't look any better and sometimes worse then what was available for the 360. Sony needed something to show consumers "Hey, look what our machine can do, we weren't lying at our conference" and that did a lot for Sony.

Also KZ2 was a major push to get developers of different houses working together and sharing information about how to get the most out of the PS3. We saw so many slides and figures from KZ development that basically showed the consumer (ok, maybe just us geeks) what is needed and how things should be done on the PS3 to get the results people expect of it. They also used that house to develop/design tools that could be shared among the Playstation community to help other developers get their games running better.

In my opinion without Sony sinking money into the development of KZ2 the level of quality of current PS3 games and those coming out in the future wouldn't be as high as it is now. KZ2 showed that the Playstation could hold its own against the 360 and in some aspects surpass the 360 when developed for properly. It was really the first time any 360 owner took notice that the PS3 could have a "Halo killer" even though KZ as a franchise will probably never reach that expectation.

 

[deepbrown]

But is pure profit off of game development the only factor? Killzone 2 in my opinion did MUCH MUCH more for the PS3 than it's sales. The PS3 was under some heavy heat because the games didn't look any better and sometimes worse then what was available for the 360. Sony needed something to show consumers "Hey, look what our machine can do, we weren't lying at our conference" and that did a lot for Sony.

Also KZ2 was a major push to get developers of different houses working together and sharing information about how to get the most out of the PS3. We saw so many slides and figures from KZ development that basically showed the consumer (ok, maybe just us geeks) what is needed and how things should be done on the PS3 to get the results people expect of it. They also used that house to develop/design tools that could be shared among the Playstation community to help other developers get their games running better.

In my opinion without Sony sinking money into the development of KZ2 the level of quality of current PS3 games and those coming out in the future wouldn't be as high as it is now. KZ2 showed that the Playstation could hold its own against the 360 and in some aspects surpass the 360 when developed for properly. It was really the first time any 360 owner took notice that the PS3 could have a "Halo killer" even though KZ as a franchise will probably never reach that expectation.

This. The opinions on what constitutes a success is very narrow in this thread.

If it makes a profit, it's a success. If it has a bigger role to play than just sales, then it's an even bigger success.

 

[ShadowRunner]

It should have sold at least 4-5 million units IMHO; but the point is that it's probably the best PS3 game and it's a disappointment that people don't like it. In this case expectations were high because of the quality of the game.

I dont think its down to the quality of the game at all or even the appeal of it. If U2 was a 360 exclusive it could well have seen totaly different sales even though the quality and apeal of it would be the same.

Lets take a look at Borderlands, 360 sold massive amounts more than the the PS3 version yet they are EXACTLY the same games in terms of quality and appeal, the difference in sales came down to the difference in userbase NOT the quality of it.

 

[joker454]

Anyways I think first party studios will always be relevant to help show off unique capabilites of the hardware and therefore they will never go away as long as the consoles don´t go totally generic.
Here´s an example.

Natal is completely different for three reasons. First, it's an entirely new interface so MS needs to dish out some cash to show how it can be used in creative ways instead of the to-be-expected tacking on motion to existing products issue. That all but requires that they create their own product with their own teams with whatever experiments they have conjured up to date. Second, it's considered a console accessory which means they automatically expected significant resistance to supporting it so they had to support it themselves both as a contingency plan just in case few others did, but also to show that they back this accessory fully. Finally, Natal development is a drop in the bucket cost wise compared to the checks Sony cuts to it's 1st parties, we're talking totally different leagues here. Some product will inevitably be current games adapted to Natal, as you can imagine that is dirt cheap which is unfortunately one of the reasons it's inevitable that we will see such product. Natal specific products though don't need to be decked out graphics wise like 360 games do either as the Wii has demonstrated. The Natal demographic needs far less cash to satisfy, which is also one of the reasons it's such a desirable demographic to win over.

Sure in a one console world, these first party exclusives wouldn't matter. But a console needs to differentiate itself.

You don't need to fund multi million dollar games all over the world to do that. Look at the lessons learned this gen. First and foremost the Wii, it's #1 because it totally differentiated itself from the other two with entirely new controls that went after an entirely different demographic. They even managed to do that using hardware that predates the cretaceous period. They of course still make their own games, but their costs aren't out of control as they are at some of Sony's studios.

Second is the 360 who went with various different tactics. They spent money to support devs to where it because easy for them to have the best versions of multiplatform games, they didn't charge for bandwidth which helps get demos early, they cut some checks to break key exclusive games and/or to get exclusive dlc, and they spent money on their online experience. That's how they differentiated themselves this gen. I'd say the fact that a company as reviled as Microsoft that shipped a console that broke yet still managed to steal the throne from the Playstation brand should be a fairly big clue who chose correctly in where to spend their money. We surely have hindsight and all, but a lot was learned this gen on different ways to differentiate oneself aside from owning tons of 1st party studios.

At a minimum Sony needs to really reign in their 1st parties. Naughty Dog is a good example of how it should be done. Their history shows that they are capable of creating new ip's out of thin air, and likewise their history shows that they are technically at the top of their class. They have also managed to put out two games so far this gen as well as working on a new ip, and all the while providing tech tools for everyone else. They are executing very well. In that case sure, fund them and fund them well, but still keep an eye on things. As a counter I look at Polyphony Digital and I knock my head against the wall wondering how Sony has allowed this gen to go by what looks like will be 5 years without having a GT game out. That is madness. I look at KZ2 with which they dropped a fortune to compete in the most competitive class out there, shooters. Did they really think they would win? They would have been far better served giving money to Infinity Ward in exchange for some perks to make the PS3 version of MW2 the definitive one to have.

Sure you need some 1st parties, but not the way it is now. It's out of control and something has to give, they can't keep operating like this. The old gen strategy of spend everything on 1st parties and all the rest will take care of itself simply doesn't work anymore, not with new foes like the Wii and 360.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

We're talking about sales, not something as hard to grasp as tech sharing and consumer mindshare.

Not to mention that practically every PS3 exclusive has failed to reach sales expectations, except maybe for MGS4

Also, KZ2 hasn't really boosted the sales of neither the PS3 (a price cut did) nor its other exclusives, and multiplatform titles aren't getting better just because of its existence either. It certainly had some level of success there (so did UC2) but that's for another topic to discuss.

 

[Dregun]

PS brand was 120 million consoles last gen, top dog for two generations. MS and Nintendo's brands were decidedly weak by comparison, meaning only Sony really had the brand advantage this gen, save perhaps XB being strong in NA.

I don't think the brand loyalty was the fact that it was a "Sony" console, more over the fact that the "Sony" console had the games they wanted to play. When looking at the iPod (a brand) and looking at the future we can already see iPod will be biting the dust soon. Does that mean the "Brand" no longer had the loyalty it had or is it simply because now most Cell Phones offer the same abilit to play digital music as the iPod did?

My wife had 3 generations of the iPod, since her new phone offers the ability to store up to 16GB of music on a SD card, has touch screen functions and uses a standardized head phone jack she will never buy another iPod. Does that mean she no longer has brand loyalty? It simply means that another product offered her the same/more features and was more convient then lugging around an iPod + Cell phone. If however a new generation of iPod is released that offers her the same or better functions her cell phone does she will then purchase that version of the iPod. No different then console owners, the vast majority could care less that game X plays on "Playstation" but that Playstation plays game "X".

The VAST majority of Playstation "loyalist" are only so because it has the games they want to play, that is as far as the "loyalty" goes and this generation has done much to prove that. Nintendo didn't lose the last 2 console races because of brand loyalty, they lost it because the games they wanted to play were on other machines. How much different would things have been if the GameCube had Halo, Grand Theft Auto, Gran Tourismo, Devil May Cry, Boulders Gate, Final Fantasy etc etc and Sony had Luigi's Mansion, Mario Sunshine, Metroid Prime, Mario Kart..etc etc. Would we turn around and say Nintendo won because of "Loyalty"? Aboslutly not because we know the reasons where the games available to the console.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

And yet, Resistance has sold very well...

As a first available shooter. What are the chances of any future Sony-developed shooters selling gangbusters? I think very limited, because there are so many alternatives, which is what I was trying to say. It's all very well to say Sony should invest in other titles, but they have their investment in the racing genre coming 'real soon now' and I don't there' smuch fight to be had in the shooter realm. Let CoD and MoH duke it out with Halo/Gears offering a rare Bonus Payout for MS.

Several games have already done that even on the PS3; GTA4, COD4 and MW2, AC1, MGS4, Resistance, Motorstorm...

Let's count how many are shooters and racers.
How mjch chance have non-shooters/racers really got of getting into this list?

Although let's not make that 10% such a strict requirement... I'd consider a game really successful - in terms of sales - as soon as it makes a significant profit.

I'll generally go along with this, although Dregun throws in viable complications. KZ2 I'd count as a flop because such a lot was spent on it. Regarding Sony's first-parties, what appears to be some pretty loose purse-strings does seem to be having rather limited returns. But as you say, we don't have real budgets, so we're guessing here a lot fo the time.

 

[deepbrown]

We're talking about sales, not something as hard to grasp as tech sharing and consumer mindshare.



Also, KZ2 hasn't really boosted the sales of neither the PS3 (a price cut did) nor its other exclusives, and multiplatform titles aren't getting better just because of its existence either. It certainly had some level of success there (so did UC2) but that's for another topic to discuss.

And yet the Xbox 360 is cheaper than the PS3 and it's titles sell over 4 million, but it's still selling behind the PS3. I don't believe you can put that all down to a price cut. Price cuts prompt a sudden bump in sales, but to maintain those sales takes something else. A strong library. Two things held back the PS3 early on. Price, and lack of games. The fact that it now has them, should not be ignored.

As for U2 - it's not only a success, it's clearly a success in sales. Selling behind its predecessor in only 2 months and it's also made a significant profit, since ND is a relatively small team and sticks to a tight and pretty conservative budget.

Plus who's expectations are we talking about here? Yours? You don't believe a game is a success unless it sells over 4 million. Which is a little ridiculous.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Second is the 360 who went with various different tactics.

Hang on. I know VGChartz numbers are seriously dodgy but from their data gathering from real sources, isn't it the case that XB360 had a lead of ~5 million when PS3 launched, and has a lead of ~5 million now? So at the end of the day, the only tactic that has led to XB360 outselling PS3 is launching first. Being cheaper, better, offering developer support etc. has resulted in no more appeal for XB360 than PS3, and the only tactic that really matters is being first out the gate (as long as the rest is 'good enough'). Sony's investment decisions have produced no worse sales than XB360, and at a higher price, which doesn't really scream 'bad investment' to me (whereas losing lots of money does!).