What a game needs to be a sales success *spinoff

[Cheezdoodles]

Mod : This thread is a spinoff from the Uncharted game thread where talk turned to sales and comparisons with other titles. As the discussion was doomed to go ahead regardless, I've spawned it into a new thread to leave the Uncharted thread clean. I'm not sure about the title so we'll see where this thread actually goes.

I know Uncharted sold well enough. But it didn't seem to do the sales it seemingly deserved. Maybe it is simply because it came out at a point in the PS3's life cycle where there just weren't enough systems out there. Or maybe this single player action adventure genre is just tough to sell these days.
.

Hasn't uncharted sold like 2 million? Thats rather good (not great, considering it has been bundled quite a bit)

There is never to few systems, just not good enough games (or not marketed enough). Call Of Duty 2 sold 2 million titles unbundled during the first 3 or so launch months for the X360, Uncharted launching a full year after the PS3 launch, cannot use the "to few systems" argument.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I wouldn't say 'not good enough game'. Some games are brilliant but with a smaller appeal, serving a smaller niche of gamers. I think there's a fair argument that Uncharted is a better game overall than COD2, but it's just a smaller genre etc. I don't think sales numbers are the best indicator of the best games.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

I wouldn't say 'not good enough game'. Some games are brilliant but with a smaller appeal, serving a smaller niche of gamers.

Which is why i said "not good enough game (or not marketed enough)".

While i am aware that games are less marketable than others, uncharted is certainly not in a particularly "niche" market. Action adventure has been a popular genre for a long time, and there are plenty of games which sales proove that. While FPS and racing are the most popular genres right now, action adventure is hardly niche.

The Tomb Raider franchise has sold about 30 million titles. Tomb Raider is the exact same genre, hell its basically the same game.

I think there's a fair argument that Uncharted is a better game overall than COD2, but it's just a smaller genre etc.

First off, i did not say that CoD2 was better than Uncharted, my post point was simply that "to few systems" is not an excuse for low sales for a good title.That being said, i would love to see you make a fair, objective, relevant argument that Uncharted is a better game than Cod2.

A direct comparison cannot be made (not thats relevant for sales) as CoD2 competed for sales in 2005, and Uncharted competed for sales in 2007. Uncharted being a better game today is totally irrelevant.

The only relevant comparison would be review score average. Review scores will reflect how good the game was compared to the competition it faced at the market at that time.

CoD2 X360 got 90,1% at gamerankings.com, Uncharted got 89,9%. Not much of a difference, but, clearly, no "fair" argument can be made that uncharted was significantly better than Call of Duty 2.

I don't think sales numbers are the best indicator of the best games.

Neither do i, however how good a game is certainly has a lot to do with sales. Marketing probably has more to do with it (and how easy the game is to marked) but good games tend to sell MUCH better than not good games.

If you look at sales data and review data for games start playing with regression, average review score has a tremendous impact on how the game sales. In fact, with the exception of EA titles, how good a game faired review vise was by far the most important and explaining factor in relation to sales data.

(EA uses much much more on marketing than the average big publisher, and the result being that their games usually sell a lot more than their review score should explain.)

This is getting off topic anyways, my post simply pointed out that "to few systems" is not an excuse for low sales. That being said, Uncharted has sold very well considering its review score.

 

[RenegadeRocks]

Hasn't uncharted sold like 2 million? Thats rather good (not great, considering it has been bundled quite a bit)

There is never to few systems, just not good enough games (or not marketed enough). Call Of Duty 2 sold 2 million titles unbundled during the first 3 or so launch months for the X360, Uncharted launching a full year after the PS3 launch, cannot use the "to few systems" argument.

You do understand that COD has a "2" attached to it. People know it is a good game,its credibility was leveraging on the original game.People ran for it and bought Xbox360s to play it, coz they were sure they wanted to play COD2.If it had come out on PS3, console buyers would have made the decision of buying a ps3 to play it.

Uncharted was a new IP, people won't run to buy ps3 for it, not until they can atleast try it out. Most of the people buying Uncharted would be people who own a ps3 already and want to play it.So, the "too few Systems" argument does hold true for Uncharted, or any new IP. Although, now that Uncharted is well known and proven, you will see its long legs forming up.

You can compare COD 2 case to MGS or Resistance "2" but not to Uncharted or Resistance or any new IP on ps3 which was dragging in sales at that time.

 

[Gitaroo]

not to mention COD2 was pretty much the best there is on 360 at the time beside maybe condamned. Everything else was mediorcre for a long long time until something like GRAW1 or Oblivion was out.

 

[jandlecack]

Hey, Gitaroo, don't forget - it's the 360, it's not fair to compare its first year to that of the PS3 No, we only compare 2nd-3rd-gen to 1st-gen. You know, where there's actually a difference, and one console doesn't suck the big one anymore. Both PS3 and 360 were a joke in their first years.

 

[deepbrown]

Hasn't uncharted sold like 2 million? Thats rather good (not great, considering it has been bundled quite a bit)

There is never to few systems, just not good enough games (or not marketed enough). Call Of Duty 2 sold 2 million titles unbundled during the first 3 or so launch months for the X360, Uncharted launching a full year after the PS3 launch, cannot use the "to few systems" argument.

It could have been marketed a hell of a lot better and that's a fact. On another note - Uncharted sold a higher percentage of copies per PS3 install base, than both Mass Effect and Bioshock with the Xbox 360's install base.


*snip* If you have nothing to add... you know the drill. -AlS

This is getting off topic anyways, my post simply pointed out that "to few systems" is not an excuse for low sales. That being said, Uncharted has sold very well considering its review score.

Aannnd...you're wrong. Install base IS a factor and a pretty large factor. As you can already see I've claimed Uncharted sold better than Bioshock and Mass Effect in relation to console install base, that doesn't mean Uncharted sold more than both of those titles. Install base counts - how much is a matter of opinion.

 

[RenegadeRocks]

I made a valid point about an New IP being more affected by the Install base than an established series, but apparently my post has been removed by Shifty for references to COD2.

But in any case, an New IP is affected by how many systems are out there as there is very little chance of someone buying a console for a new IP unless he gets to try it out.

On the other hand, a sequel of an established series is not affected by install base as much as people know that the game is going to be good, leveraging on their previous experience, and can buy the console just for that game thus selling more copies of the game.

When it comes to a new IP, most of the buyers would be people who already own that console,ie. from the install base, and want to play it. Getting new system buyers for a new IP is very difficult and Sony is going through that situation right now with LBP too. Marketing is what works here as people can't try out demos as they don't have the console. Gears is a good example of good marketing turning a new IP into a system seller.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

It could have been marketed a hell of a lot better and that's a fact. On another note - Uncharted sold a higher percentage of copies per PS3 install base, than both Mass Effect and Bioshock with the Xbox 360's install base.

So what?

Whoops. Forgot I was talking about a PS3 game with Ostepop.

What are you trying to imply? Im to ****ing old to run around and care about which console is the best (aspecially when i own all 3). Not only that i own stocks in all 3 companies (simply because i like owning index based fonds, has to be the easiest way to earn money ever!)

Im just as sceptic and hard on all titles regardless on which platform it comes out. However, PS3 owners uses far more superlatives in their statements about their games, so there is alot more to discuss\argue about. If somebody says "best ever animations" im gonna post my arguments against that statement if i disagree. Thus, simply because people say "best AI ever" etc etc a lot more with up coming PS3 games, there is more to discuss there.

Seriously grow up, i dont care about the platform, i care about the game, im probably a lot more harsh in my view of games than most people, but thats who i am. (simply because i dont have much free time, so unless the game is good, im not gonna bother spending much time with it).

Tbh, if i was to "root" for any console i would say i root for the PS3 (GT5!!!), because unlike the X360 it doesn't make much noice and the XMB looks so smooth, (the "manga" theme looks mint btw) and it has a lot of potential thats not being used.

Aannnd...you're wrong. Install base IS a factor and a pretty large factor. As you can already see I've claimed Uncharted sold better than Bioshock and Mass Effect in relation to console install base, that doesn't mean Uncharted sold more than both of those titles. Install base counts - how much is a matter of opinion.

I think your trying to hard to "catch" me or something. I never said that install base is not a factor, i said its not an excuse for low sales (not that uncharted sold low). Of course, install base is a limitation (as people who dont own the console will not buy the game).

A "pretty large factor" is not true at all, do some regression on sales data vs install base, if "install base" really was a significant factor, big titles that come out relatively late in a console life should sell tremendously more than big titles early in their life. Install base has very little explanation power for sales. Not high enough to be significant at all for big titles. For smaller worse games, it does have some impact.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

IBut in any case, an New IP is affected by how many systems are out there as there is very little chance of someone buying a console for a new IP unless he gets to try it out.

Your forgetting the differences in the market situation.

While there is less consoles out, there is also much less games out. It takes a long time for a console to build up a decent library of games. Thus, the competition is small, there are very few games out but there are millions of console owners who wants to play with their new game console!

From the math i have done, new IP's launched in the first year of a console average much higher (65%) in sales compared to IP's launching with the following years (which have multiple times the first years install base).

There is absolutely no data at hand suggesting that larger install base is a better environment for a new IP, infact, we have very strong empirical evidence suggesting otherwise.

You can check for yourself, compare sales for new IP's that launched, for example, with X360 sold vs a random decently sized sample with new ip's launched in 2007. The average numbers speak for themselves. And this can be traced back to most if not all consoles. Same happends if you compare how well new ips sold that got released in the first year of the launch, vs any other year.

On the other hand, a sequel of an established series is not affected by install base as much as people know that the game is going to be good, leveraging on their previous experience, and can buy the console just for that game thus selling more copies of the game.

There have been plenty of new IP's that have sold very well with small install bases. A lot of new IP launch titles to extremely well! Check you data, you may believe this is the case, but atleast with the sample data's i have (about 200 titles alltogether), there is little correlation between new IP's and installation base.

In fact, new IP's released early in the console life time tend to do much better on average!. This is because the competition gets much harder (much more titles to choose from + old titles are on budget price)

 

[RenegadeRocks]

You are forgetting the example you provided. You said COD2 sold 2 million within 3 months of X360's launch. You think it would have sold the same number if it was a new IP? :|Fans bought X360 to play COD2, eliminating the install base problem for it sale. Its logical.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

You are forgetting the example you provided. You said COD2 sold 2 million within 3 months of X360's launch.

My example has nothing to do with the theory you provided in your previous post and my reply. We wheren't talking about new ip's or not before a few posts down after my example. In my last post we talk about your theory that new ip's do better with more systems.

Did you not comprehend my reply?

I could make no regression that install base has any significant impact on how well New-IP's do. New IP's tend to do best during times with the lowest amount of games released, this happends also to be during the times with lowest install base.

Ofcourse, since the amount of people goes up, there is some impact by the demand, (so average sales trend up for games in general that are released after the 2nd year, compared to the 2nd year games, but they are significantly lower than the average for first year titles).

You think it would have sold the same number if it was a new IP?

Yes.


CoD2 sold well because there was 2 fps games out during launch (3 couting GUN, dunno what that really is), PD:Z and CoD2, PD:Z sucked balls, and CoD2 was brilliant for a console shooter in 2005 early 2006. So CoD2 was the only real choice (however PD:Z managed to sell about 2 million, which is quite amazing considering how bad that game is).

CoD previous games on consoles wheren't particularly good, the PC originial was good but that was a long time ago (+ the game was allready out on PC). CoD2 would have done pretty much as good with a new name. There simply was very little competition, CoD2 sold well because of that and marketing, not so much brand name.

:|Fans bought X360 to play COD2, eliminating the install base problem for it sale. Its logical.

I doubt anyone bought a X360 because of CoD2 alone. And i think its absolutely ridiculous to suggest that 2 million people bought a $400 console at launch because of a PC port alone.

 

[tha_con]

Wow, seems like a lot of folks are forgetting this generation is all about grit and shooting, which is the biggest reason CoD2 sold well (not because it was a "great" game). A shooter with good graphics on a shiny new system = google eyes.

Uncharted was a brilliant game, but Nathan Drake simply wasn't what gamers were looking for at the time. Games like Bioshock, Gears of War, and especially Assassins Creed show that people are more interested in gritty games with lots of in your face killing, as opposed to a game that looks like Indiana Jones starring the lead singer in a Boy Band rocking the half tuck.

Also, I thought Assassins creed was stale, lifeless, and had a ton of animation glitches (specifically running through a crowd). I much preferred the animation in Uncharted, glitches be damned. Aside from jumping, I felt it was superior to AC in every way, but that's just me.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Chalkin AC's success up to just 'grit' is a little shallow to say the least.

The experience in AC is completely different than Uncharted, if anything this shows that
A) People prefer a vast open world which they can explore, rather than an on-the-rails shooter with questionable gunplay.

B) The subject matter of being a medieval assassin is much more interesting to people than being a cliched treasure hunter.

I mean you really couldn't have two more different games and experiences, you really can't chalk it up to one aspect.

Having played the Uncharted demo on my new PS3, I have to say I was very underwhelmed with the gameplay. The GFX are stunning, but the gameplay really felt like an unpolished Gears of War to me, the firearms lack any real sense of impact and the endless waves of bad guys is just annoying.

Granted, the AI was impressive, but personally I'm not really looking forward to sitting through 8+ hours of the combat I saw in that demo...

 

[deepbrown]

Chalkin AC's success up to just 'grit' is a little shallow to say the least.

The experience in AC is completely different than Uncharted, if anything this shows that
A) People prefer a vast open world which they can explore, rather than an on-the-rails shooter with questionable gunplay.

B) The subject matter of being a medieval assassin is much more interesting to people than being a cliched treasure hunter.

I mean you really couldn't have two more different games and experiences, you really can't chalk it up to one aspect.

Having played the Uncharted demo on my new PS3, I have to say I was very underwhelmed with the gameplay. The GFX are stunning, but the gameplay really felt like an unpolished Gears of War to me, the firearms lack any real sense of impact and the endless waves of bad guys is just annoying.

Granted, the AI was impressive, but personally I'm not really looking forward to sitting through 8+ hours of the combat I saw in that demo...

Play the game. The demo is the least impressive part of the game.

Plus, all of what you've both said about AC is moot. AC sold better (and not that much better) because of advertising. Simple as. It was better advertised by Ubisoft.

 

[patsu]

I can see relevance in some of the contributing factors highlighted (size of install base, size of game library, consumer preferences, ...). But in the end, the largest factor is probably execution. PS3 still have new IPs coming out (e.g., Infamous, MAG, LBP, Mirror's Edge, etc.) too. So we will have plenty of concrete things to discuss.

Going back to Uncharted...
If the game is available later, I'm sure it will be even better than the original. I think comparison with Tomb Raider is valid from story/movie theme perspective. Both have a mythical treasure (hunt) story to tell. However, the game plays differently from past Tomb Raider titles though. UC is primarily a cover shooter.

Future Uncharted games may incorporate more puzzle and platforming elements. Till then, I feel there is very little similarity between their gameplay. I don't even know why people bother to compare AC and Uncharted. They are like apple and beef. Both are edible and that's about it.

AC's main appeal to me was the crowd AI (imagine a city of smart NPC) and the freedom. The medieval theme gives it a more curious angle. In the end, the game underdelivered and crashed on me within the first few minutes. Granted AC sold better because of compelling concept and marketing (and it's cross platform !).

Uncharted is much more limited in scope because they started from zero, but provided an extremely polished experience. I suspect because of its quality, the latter has longer legs while AC is more like a firework.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Play the game. The demo is the least impressive part of the game.

Plus, all of what you've both said about AC is moot. AC sold better (and not that much better) because of advertising. Simple as. It was better advertised by Ubisoft.

That;s your opinion, I view it as a cop-out personally, as if to say it's not the games fault it didn't sell well...it's the marketing.

Sure, AC was marketed well, and that is surely part of the reason for it's massive sales, surely the other, more important part, is that it struck a chord among gamers. It's the sort of game that doesn't need heavy marketing, because at the mere mention of the concept people are already excited.

The reality is, no matter what type of marketing UC had, it most likely would never have sold as many copies as AC.

And ya, I'll rent the game one of these days, though I think the demo gave me a good indication what I can expect in the full playthrough, I doubt there will be many surprises...

 

[patsu]

And ya, I'll rent the game one of these days, though I think the demo gave me a good indication what I can expect in the full playthrough, I doubt there will be many surprises...

Yes about the shooting (there are plenty). Once you are able to get past the pirate hordes, you just might find something unexpected. ;-)

Not sure if you'll like the surprises though.

 

[deepbrown]

That;s your opinion, I view it as a cop-out personally, as if to say it's not the games fault it didn't sell well...it's the marketing.

Sure, AC was marketed well, and that is surely part of the reason for it's massive sales, surely the other, more important part, is that it struck a chord among gamers. It's the sort of game that doesn't need heavy marketing, because at the mere mention of the concept people are already excited.

The reality is, no matter what type of marketing UC had, it most likely would never have sold as many copies as AC.

And ya, I'll rent the game one of these days, though I think the demo gave me a good indication what I can expect in the full playthrough, I doubt there will be many surprises...

There are plenty of surprises. This game is made one of the best developers out there. They know how to make a game, they know how to mix it up, and they know how to make an enjoyable experience where you won't get bored. The demo is NOT the game. It's not like AC where you're doing the same thing over and over again.

And I don't think it's a copout at all. AC was advertised very well, picking on exactly the right content to show, and sticking to ingame footage. Sony didn't push Uncharted as much as Ubisoft pushed AC - by a long shot.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That;s your opinion, I view it as a cop-out personally, as if to say it's not the games fault it didn't sell well...it's the marketing.

Sure, AC was marketed well, and that is surely part of the reason for it's massive sales...

I think it's a good part. It had a lot of pre-release hype, was a 'proper next-gen game' with tooted AI, animation etc., and I think expectations were raised so people were expecting something amazing. I think the actual product wasn't that good, and if people had known exactly what they were buying, sales may have been much lower. I don't know. It'd need some actually gamer feedback. From all I've heard post both titles, plenty of people were disappointed with AC gameplay becoming quickly repetitive or what-have-you versus complaints about Uncharted.

If both were being launched tomorrow and everyone had the insight now garnered since 2007, I don't imagine AC would fair anything like as well. But I admit that is a lot of guesswork on my part!

And ya, I'll rent the game one of these days, though I think the demo gave me a good indication what I can expect in the full playthrough, I doubt there will be many surprises...

We played Uncharted on our Tuesday evening guys' night, taking turns, and a mate kept joking that any minute now.... And then at the end it did! It was a shock.