By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sales Discussion - Sega: Vanquish missed sales expectations

richardhutnik on 19 May 2011
Aprisaiden said:
richardhutnik said:
disolitude said:
KylieDog said:
leatherhat said:

Vanquish is a crappy 3rd person shooter that is very low on content and deserves less sales than it has.

 

:)


This.


In both of your dreams maybe...

In the realworld Vanquish has more single player gameplay goodness in its pinky than Gears of War 2 during the entire game.

Sure it doesn't have MP, but maybe Platinum didn't feel like or had decent ideas in making MP for this game. Many games with pointless, crappy, "me too" MP prove that sometimes less is more...

That doesn't matter.  What matters is people feel they get their money's worth out of a FPS, or any game for that mattter.  Exactly how many hours of gameplay was in the campaign of Vanquish?  And if less than 15, why would anyone spend $60 for it?  Companies keep pumping out single player titles, withat clock in 10 hours or less, and spend tens of millions of dollars on doing this, and then somehow expect to recover their costs?

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vanquish-blog-entry

4-10 hours total?  Who here expects peoplke to spend $60 for 4-10 hours gameplay total?

You know the game is fun enough that you will want to replay it and the challenge rooms take a while to complete. As for games needing to have 15 hours of single player -- i disagree. Some games are going to be big titles that take long time to complete, others will be short either way the best way to judge the value of a game is how much enjoyment you got out of it not how long you spent playing it.

Would you pay $60 to own a movie?  The idea is how long can you enjoy a game for, for how much you spent.  What I was saying here is if a game is short, and fails to provide much in the way of replayability, it is likely to get doomed in the marketplace and race to bargain bin, and fail.  Enslaved faced a similar issue.  People do NOT want to get a short game and drop $60 for it.  This is a reason why multiplayer gets added.  Without the replayability factor, the game quickly races to be sold also, and floods the used section.



Around the Network
Jdevil3 on 19 May 2011
richardhutnik said:
Aprisaiden said:
richardhutnik said:
disolitude said:
KylieDog said:
leatherhat said:

Vanquish is a crappy 3rd person shooter that is very low on content and deserves less sales than it has.

 

:)


This.


In both of your dreams maybe...

In the realworld Vanquish has more single player gameplay goodness in its pinky than Gears of War 2 during the entire game.

Sure it doesn't have MP, but maybe Platinum didn't feel like or had decent ideas in making MP for this game. Many games with pointless, crappy, "me too" MP prove that sometimes less is more...

That doesn't matter.  What matters is people feel they get their money's worth out of a FPS, or any game for that mattter.  Exactly how many hours of gameplay was in the campaign of Vanquish?  And if less than 15, why would anyone spend $60 for it?  Companies keep pumping out single player titles, withat clock in 10 hours or less, and spend tens of millions of dollars on doing this, and then somehow expect to recover their costs?

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vanquish-blog-entry

4-10 hours total?  Who here expects peoplke to spend $60 for 4-10 hours gameplay total?

You know the game is fun enough that you will want to replay it and the challenge rooms take a while to complete. As for games needing to have 15 hours of single player -- i disagree. Some games are going to be big titles that take long time to complete, others will be short either way the best way to judge the value of a game is how much enjoyment you got out of it not how long you spent playing it.

Would you pay $60 to own a movie?  The idea is how long can you enjoy a game for, for how much you spent.  What I was saying here is if a game is short, and fails to provide much in the way of replayability, it is likely to get doomed in the marketplace and race to bargain bin, and fail.  Enslaved faced a similar issue.  People do NOT want to get a short game and drop $60 for it.  This is a reason why multiplayer gets added.  Without the replayability factor, the game quickly races to be sold also, and floods the used section.

Vanquish has infinite replay value. It doesn't need multiplayer, I payed 310 Argentinian Pesos for it (Over 75 Dollars).

It's like one of those old arcade games you keep playing and playing even if you already finished the game once.



A banner stolen from some site xD

Release Final Fantasy Versus XIII nowwwwwwwwww!!! lol :P

outlawauron on 19 May 2011
richardhutnik said:
disolitude said:
KylieDog said:
leatherhat said:

Vanquish is a crappy 3rd person shooter that is very low on content and deserves less sales than it has.

 

:)


This.


In both of your dreams maybe...

In the realworld Vanquish has more single player gameplay goodness in its pinky than Gears of War 2 during the entire game.

Sure it doesn't have MP, but maybe Platinum didn't feel like or had decent ideas in making MP for this game. Many games with pointless, crappy, "me too" MP prove that sometimes less is more...

That doesn't matter.  What matters is people feel they get their money's worth out of a FPS, or any game for that mattter.  Exactly how many hours of gameplay was in the campaign of Vanquish?  And if less than 15, why would anyone spend $60 for it?  Companies keep pumping out single player titles, withat clock in 10 hours or less, and spend tens of millions of dollars on doing this, and then somehow expect to recover their costs?

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vanquish-blog-entry

4-10 hours total?  Who here expects peoplke to spend $60 for 4-10 hours gameplay total?

I do. I payed $60 for Bayonetta and Heavenly Sword and the money spent on the gave me far more value than tons of other games that were longer or had multiplayer.



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

Aprisaiden on 19 May 2011
richardhutnik said:
Aprisaiden said:
richardhutnik said:
disolitude said:
KylieDog said:
leatherhat said:

Vanquish is a crappy 3rd person shooter that is very low on content and deserves less sales than it has.

 

:)


This.


In both of your dreams maybe...

In the realworld Vanquish has more single player gameplay goodness in its pinky than Gears of War 2 during the entire game.

Sure it doesn't have MP, but maybe Platinum didn't feel like or had decent ideas in making MP for this game. Many games with pointless, crappy, "me too" MP prove that sometimes less is more...

That doesn't matter.  What matters is people feel they get their money's worth out of a FPS, or any game for that mattter.  Exactly how many hours of gameplay was in the campaign of Vanquish?  And if less than 15, why would anyone spend $60 for it?  Companies keep pumping out single player titles, withat clock in 10 hours or less, and spend tens of millions of dollars on doing this, and then somehow expect to recover their costs?

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vanquish-blog-entry

4-10 hours total?  Who here expects peoplke to spend $60 for 4-10 hours gameplay total?

You know the game is fun enough that you will want to replay it and the challenge rooms take a while to complete. As for games needing to have 15 hours of single player -- i disagree. Some games are going to be big titles that take long time to complete, others will be short either way the best way to judge the value of a game is how much enjoyment you got out of it not how long you spent playing it.

Would you pay $60 to own a movie?  The idea is how long can you enjoy a game for, for how much you spent.  What I was saying here is if a game is short, and fails to provide much in the way of replayability, it is likely to get doomed in the marketplace and race to bargain bin, and fail.  Enslaved faced a similar issue.  People do NOT want to get a short game and drop $60 for it.  This is a reason why multiplayer gets added.  Without the replayability factor, the game quickly races to be sold also, and floods the used section.

If the movie was good enough then i would pay $60 for it, and i think Enslaved is a bad choice to back up your argument - that game was insanely good, the only thing i can agree with is that shorter games should try to ensure they incorparate some form replayability. 



richardhutnik on 19 May 2011
Aprisaiden said:
richardhutnik said:
Aprisaiden said:
richardhutnik said:
disolitude said:
KylieDog said:
leatherhat said:

Vanquish is a crappy 3rd person shooter that is very low on content and deserves less sales than it has.

 

:)


This.


In both of your dreams maybe...

In the realworld Vanquish has more single player gameplay goodness in its pinky than Gears of War 2 during the entire game.

Sure it doesn't have MP, but maybe Platinum didn't feel like or had decent ideas in making MP for this game. Many games with pointless, crappy, "me too" MP prove that sometimes less is more...

That doesn't matter.  What matters is people feel they get their money's worth out of a FPS, or any game for that mattter.  Exactly how many hours of gameplay was in the campaign of Vanquish?  And if less than 15, why would anyone spend $60 for it?  Companies keep pumping out single player titles, withat clock in 10 hours or less, and spend tens of millions of dollars on doing this, and then somehow expect to recover their costs?

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vanquish-blog-entry

4-10 hours total?  Who here expects peoplke to spend $60 for 4-10 hours gameplay total?

You know the game is fun enough that you will want to replay it and the challenge rooms take a while to complete. As for games needing to have 15 hours of single player -- i disagree. Some games are going to be big titles that take long time to complete, others will be short either way the best way to judge the value of a game is how much enjoyment you got out of it not how long you spent playing it.

Would you pay $60 to own a movie?  The idea is how long can you enjoy a game for, for how much you spent.  What I was saying here is if a game is short, and fails to provide much in the way of replayability, it is likely to get doomed in the marketplace and race to bargain bin, and fail.  Enslaved faced a similar issue.  People do NOT want to get a short game and drop $60 for it.  This is a reason why multiplayer gets added.  Without the replayability factor, the game quickly races to be sold also, and floods the used section.

If the movie was good enough then i would pay $60 for it, and i think Enslaved is a bad choice to back up your argument - that game was insanely good, the only thing i can agree with is that shorter games should try to ensure they incorparate some form replayability. 

The point was to pick out something that is a good form of interactive fiction, that didn't do well, and ask why.  I would say Enslaved didn't sell well, because at $60 launch, people demand more.  And at that price, once beaten, they will trade it in for store credit to get something else.  Then the games pile up, and no one buys new.  This is a reason why the videogame industry, after cracking down on piracy, wants to stop used game sales.  They think, by doing this, they then could end up forcing people to keep play through once interactive fiction.



Around the Network
arcane_chaos on 20 May 2011

Vanquish was awesome!!! hope they make a sequel, I'm trying to plat this but that 6 challenge trophy is  a B.I.T.C.H.!!!



Ultr on 20 May 2011
arcane_chaos said:

Vanquish was awesome!!! hope they make a sequel, I'm trying to plat this but that 6 challenge trophy is  a B.I.T.C.H.!!!


DAMND IT IS!

I heard only 400 people could do it, and even some of the developers arent able to do it!



I officialy know too much now.

<a href="http://eu.playstation.com/psn/profile/Ultranza/"><img src="http://mypsn.eu.playstation.com/psn/profile/Ultranza.png" border="0" /></a>

Pjams on 20 May 2011

I loved Vanquish, it epitomizes what is most important in gaming - FUN!

Many people have yet to come to grips with this concept. Sad, really.



 

Jdevil3 on 21 May 2011
Ultr said:
arcane_chaos said:

Vanquish was awesome!!! hope they make a sequel, I'm trying to plat this but that 6 challenge trophy is  a B.I.T.C.H.!!!


DAMND IT IS!

I heard only 400 people could do it, and even some of the developers arent able to do it!


Only 400 people? where did you get that from? :O

I guess I'm one of them :P



A banner stolen from some site xD

Release Final Fantasy Versus XIII nowwwwwwwwww!!! lol :P

Lyrikalstylez on 21 May 2011
Aprisaiden said:
richardhutnik said:
disolitude said:
KylieDog said:
leatherhat said:

Vanquish is a crappy 3rd person shooter that is very low on content and deserves less sales than it has.

 

:)


This.


In both of your dreams maybe...

In the realworld Vanquish has more single player gameplay goodness in its pinky than Gears of War 2 during the entire game.

Sure it doesn't have MP, but maybe Platinum didn't feel like or had decent ideas in making MP for this game. Many games with pointless, crappy, "me too" MP prove that sometimes less is more...

That doesn't matter.  What matters is people feel they get their money's worth out of a FPS, or any game for that mattter.  Exactly how many hours of gameplay was in the campaign of Vanquish?  And if less than 15, why would anyone spend $60 for it?  Companies keep pumping out single player titles, withat clock in 10 hours or less, and spend tens of millions of dollars on doing this, and then somehow expect to recover their costs?

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vanquish-blog-entry

4-10 hours total?  Who here expects peoplke to spend $60 for 4-10 hours gameplay total?

You know the game is fun enough that you will want to replay it and the challenge rooms take a while to complete. As for games needing to have 15 hours of single player -- i disagree. Some games are going to be big titles that take long time to complete, others will be short either way the best way to judge the value of a game is how much enjoyment you got out of it not how long you spent playing it.


I disagree, I judge a game by its replay value, a game might be so amazing for those 4-10 hours but after you finish it theres absoultely nothing to go back to for me does not equal $60 worth of my money! I was interested in Vanquish but after I heard of the short gameplay I decided to wait till it was cheaper.....until today when I read this thread, I seem to forgot this game completely