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

Forums - Sales Discussion - Quality =/= sales

Quality =/= Sales
Sales =/= Quality



Before the PS3 everyone was nice to me :(

Around the Network

Sales == Quality, iff Sony sell more.
Microsoft? Just all hype.



I hate these "Quality vs. Sales" debates. Sales are determined by alot more than quality. Advertising, franchise name, console demographics, ect. Not to mention that what you think is a high quality game and what someone else thinks is a high quality game could be totally different. I also hate that people treat game ratings (either critic or user) as gospel.



Killzone 2 is not objectionably better than Halo 4. Halo 4 is being criticized more harshly that Killzone 2 was and is being held back on Metacritic by a few troll scores. If anything Halo 4 is a higher quality game than Killzone 2, but that's more of a taste thing since they both have good graphics and polished gameplay.

Perhaps Killzone as a franchise just doesn't appeal to people like Halo does. Maybe Killzone is too gray, brown, and gritty. Perhaps their enemies look to alike and the environments are too bleak. Maybe people like color and style and big open environments that let them attack from any angle. Maybe Halo sells so well because it just that good.



Quality is in the eye of the beholder



Platinums: Red Dead Redemption, Killzone 2, LittleBigPlanet, Terminator Salvation, Uncharted 1, inFamous Second Son, Rocket League

Around the Network
pezus said:

I have an issue with the part that considers metacritic a reliable measure of quality. It sure is objective, but is it realiable? Is the mass the most correct? If a country elect a president, is he the best choice?

Think about it.



Review scores is always garbage, but except when it supports the argument.



RolStoppable said:
This is very easy to explain.

A common observation is that Sony sucks at marketing their games and that's because they don't have enough money to do so. Why? Because they pay off reviewers left, right and center to get good scores for their games.

That wouldn't make any sense.Why would you pay off reviewer(s) to give your game a good score.When you could market the game and get 1000x more money you would get if you didn't pay reviewers.... That's terrible thinking.It's like saying that instead of using my money to get my product out their im going to use it to make people give it a good rep.That won't help at all because if CoD were to get a say a 60 on metacritic that game would still sell like hot cakes.

Your logic fails...



KingHades said:
RolStoppable said:
This is very easy to explain.

A common observation is that Sony sucks at marketing their games and that's because they don't have enough money to do so. Why? Because they pay off reviewers left, right and center to get good scores for their games.

That wouldn't make any sense.Why would you pay off reviewer(s) to give your game a good score.When you could market the game and get 1000x more money you would get if you didn't pay reviewers.... That's terrible thinking.It's like saying that instead of using my money to get my product out their im going to use it to make people give it a good rep.That won't help at all because if CoD were to get a say a 60 on metacritic that game would still sell like hot cakes.

Your logic fails...

It's much more cost effective to buy off reviewers. Ads cost a lot more.

Think of it as lobbying. You buy off the politicians to do your corporate biddings.

Give me good reviews and you'll get swags and early/exclusive previews and free trips to so and so events 5 stars hotel.

You can buy a 100 reviews for a 30 seconds ad spot.



This argument is airtight.