Quantcast
RE7 has shipped 3.7m units, SFV 1.7m units, Dead Rising 4 still under 1m units.

Forums - Gaming Discussion - RE7 has shipped 3.7m units, SFV 1.7m units, Dead Rising 4 still under 1m units.

BraLoD said:
DonFerrari said:

They may release a GOTY edition with all the updates inside.

RE7 is better than the sales shows.

That will launch on PS6.

LoD 2 will come before it.

And there will be a LoD remaster before it



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
BraLoD said:

LoD 2 will come before it.

And there will be a LoD remaster before it

The more the merrier



AngryLittleAlchemist said:
jason1637 said:

Its a launch games it has a limited audience to sell to. at the end of 2013 around 26% of XBO owners owned a physical copy of Dead Rising 3. Considering that dead rising games arent thaty big and that for most casual gamers that picked up an XBO in 2013 they are most likely to go with bigger IPs like COD,BF, Madden,FIFA and Forza than to buy Dead Rising. Hell RYSE was probably an even better option for some people because it was a better game to showcase the power of the XBO than dead rising. And the game had had pretty good legs afterward. Physical wise it has sold more copies from 2014-and beyond than it did in its holiday launch. For a smaller series it did really well.

Gears 3 legs werent as great as the other Gears game but i think its because a lot of sales came earler because it launched before the holiday 2011. Gears 4 also did launch a few weeks before the holidays but if MS can continue the support for the game, and give it pricecuts i think it will eventually get to 6 million. Also the game looks to take advantage of the Xbox One X so it could be a popular benchmark game. Theres a chance that it might not reach that 6 million but i doubt it will be a huge drop for the series,

Halo 5 selling 5 million in 3 months is lower than other Halo games dont get me wrong. But if it hasnt by now it could outsell Halo ODST and Halo 1 which imo doesnt seem "extremely mediocre" for the series. Also not to mention that its one of the most active Halos and had made lots of money for MS and 343 so ira definitly a financial success. Splatoon 2 outsold Halo 5 in japan but i doubt it will outperform it. Battlegrounds is a new hit game. Its already outsold the XB1 version of CO IW, and AW, and BF1. Also FIFA, madden etc.

Oh by your first post you didnt specify that you meant heavy hitters or big games so i just mentioned games that were xbox eclusive.

I wasnt trying to argue your statement that "Im probably forgetting some but I feel thats fairly accurate. I just think Ori and Rare dont reflect Xbox at all". I just never heard that said before lol so i wanted more of an explanation.

But that's exactly what i was saying. Again I don't see what we're arguing about, I'm just saying the sales aren't mindblowing. And to be fair, I went out of my way to include the most positive sales figures I could find for the game. Capcom's last statement is very outdated with the game having sold 1.7 million units as of early 2015. After that point no one was posting easy-to-search articles about the games success. I'm actually weakening my argument to be fair and unbiased...because my point was never that it's sales weren't great or weren't in some way impressive, just that I don't think that's an example where you can prop up an Xbox title and make a good point for Xbox exclusive success.

"Gears 3 legs werent as great as the other Gears game but i think its because a lot of sales came earler" Right..which is what I said. But I also made that case for Gears of War 2...are you going to ignore that just to make a point? Like I said, Gears of War "legs" get worse not because the sales get worse but because more people buy the game early in it's life cycle as the games become more trusted. Considering Gears of War 4 is already a sequel to a well established franchise, and considering it didn't have good foundational sales, it would be nearly impossible to catch up. 

"but i doubt it will be a huge drop for the series" 

Well see this is the problem I have, you care more about semantics and wording then sales numbers. Personally, if Gears 4 sold 6 million by the end of the Xbox's life all I could say is "jeez...it took that long?" Since most Gears games hit a HUGE majority of their target demographic in just a year or two. The fact that it's just now at around 4 million means it's taking a long time to hit that demographic, and that's assuming that it's hit 4 million(which btw, you used 25% as the digital attach rate converter but then said tha would prop it up from 3 mil to 4... that's 3,750,000 not 4 but that's just nit picking haha). But if the game doesn't sell 6 mill, then this argument would be whether "xxx numbers" is a "big drop off". Considering you think a sales decrease of 37.5% in a 3 month period isn't "mediocre", then I have a feeling you would shrug at 4.5 or 4 million lifetime sales like it's not a big drop off. But see, objectively it is. Whether or not you think mediocre is the proper word to use, a sales decrease of 1.5 or 2 million is a lot. And I think Gears will probably face that. My guess is that by the end of the Xbox One era it will be about 1.5-1.3 million behind Gears of War 1, not including whatever digital sales that game garnished. And that's a lot, whether you think that's a "big dip off" or not. Keep in mind, Gears of War 2 and 3 were very popular when digital sales were rising. 

"Halo 5 selling 5 million in 3 months is lower than other Halo games dont get me wrong. But if it hasnt by now it could outsell Halo ODST and Halo 1 which imo doesnt seem "extremely mediocre" for the series. Also not to mention that its one of the most active Halos and had made lots of money for MS and 343 so ira definitly a financial success."

But again....this is a semantic argument over a sales one. Look, you keep quoting the "extremely mediocre" thing, but let me ask. If I just took the "extremely" part out, would you agree? I don't see how a new Halo title, that's a mainline entry, in an era with huge digital sales, that features master chief, is anything above mediocrity if you are comparing it to a 60$ rip off side game. Like what even. A dip off of millions of copies is technically, objectively, huge. This isn't like GTA 6 having 7 million less sales than the 80 million copies sold GTA V. This is Halo, and selling a few million less is objectively big, whether or not you choose one word over the other.

Also, Halo 5 being one of the most "active Halos" is partially true and untrue. It has maintained a population much better than 4, but the way that Halo 5 calculates it's online population is misleading and a lot different than 3 and Reach. Halo 5 calculates Monthly Active Users, which means it counts unique users who log in, no matter how many times they do so, as a user who's played that month. All you have to do to be a MAU is to simply turn on your xbox, sign into Xbox live, and sit in the Halo 5 menu. You don't have to play consistently or play multiplayer or anything like that. Just start the game with the internet on! Considering Halo 5 has consistent updated content, and considering it went free for a limited time and was bundled, it's not really surprising that it has a lot of MAU, but it's such a misleading figure. Halo games used to have specific player counters for multiplayer, showing you how many people are playing what game mode, what playlist etc. 343 didn't add a Halo 5 player counter, because they knew it would cause problems. The figures are misleading and I would bet that Halo 3, Reach, and even 2 had more consistent concurrent player counts in their multiplayer modes than Halo 5 ever has. Oh but of course you can download this free update, check it out for an hour and now bam! You are a figure for a statistic. Even twitter's co founder criticized the statistic. In fact 343 got called out on it, and pretty much acted like they knew the whole time and weren't pulling a PR stunt

"Following 343’s statement, the Halo population statistics have become widely discussed on the TeamBeyond forums (check out the pages before and after that particular page as well).

According to several TeamBeyond forum users, Halo 5: Guardians doesn’t come anywhere close in terms of population to Halo 3. One user even stated that Halo Reach was far more popular than Halo 5.

The studio head was asked why 343 has been so anxious when it comes to Halo 5’s population numbers since they have been stating that those numbers have been quite amazing.  Holmes replied that those numbers could probobaly be gathered from the public Halo 5 API program which gives players tools to access game data. 343 however, decided not display those numbers in game due to players focusing on them too much.

Notice how they don't address Reach(wtf how do i get rid of  this font)

" Splatoon 2 outsold Halo 5 in japan but i doubt it will outperform it. Battlegrounds is a new hit game. Its already outsold the XB1 version of CO IW, and AW, and BF1. Also FIFA, madden etc."

Really? Well, I don't know, it really depends. But I think you're widely underestimating Splatoon 2's potential, it couldd be much bigger than Halo 5, or just hover above or below it. Honestly though, I think it will probably do 5-7 mil in it's first year. I don't really see how Battlegrounds being the new hit game makes it excusable for Halo to sell worse? Your point doesn't make sense because you're comparing one version of something. Battlefield and Call of Duty's community has and always will be split between 2(technically 3) platforms. That doesn't excuse Halo which used to be very competitive with the most popular xbox 360 COD's(I'm only using a single platform in this scenario because COD started selling like crazy at the end of the 360 era). Halo's market cap used to be above BF's and now it's below it. Most third party games get a much bigger bonus on PS4 than Xbox One, so your argument is misleading. It used to be the opposite the last gen, where they switched places based on title but were fairly biased.

"Oh by your first post you didnt specify that you meant heavy hitters or big games so i just mentioned games that were xbox eclusive."

Well I said "and people laugh when I say xbox games don't sell", so if you want to include those you can, but a remaster collection and an indie title ... idk just seems like a reach. But it is fair game : P 

"And to be fair, I went out of my way to include the most positive sales figures I could find for the game. Capcom's last statement is very outdated with the game having sold 1.7 million units as of early 2015. After that point no one was posting easy-to-search articles about the games success. I'm actually weakening my argument to be fair and unbiased...because my point was never that it's sales weren't great or weren't in some way impressive"

Its obvious that we have a different perspective of a game performance to consider it "impressive". I just think that it being the best selling DR game on xbox and being a launch title selling 2.3 million is impressive for the series. You might not see it that way but whatever its just our opinions lol.

"The fact that it's just now at around 4 million means it's taking a long time to hit that demographic, and that's assuming that it's hit 4 million(which btw, you used 25% as the digital attach rate converter but then said tha would prop it up from 3 mil to 4... that's 3,750,000 not 4 but that's just nit picking haha)."

Well it took a while to hit 4 million could be the new developers. People might want to wait because they might not trust them. Also its on PC so that might be taking sone of its console sales. BTW when people talk about digital attach rate it how much digital makes of the total sales. So the game selling 4 million 25% of 4 million is 1 million. That leaves 3 million for physical and VGC has Gears 4 at 3 million. Saying that its total sales is at 3,750,000 would mean it has a 20% digital sales which will be pretty low especially when the game has a high digital attach rate in the US.

"

Considering you think a sales decrease of 37.5% in a 3 month period isn't "mediocre", then I have a feeling you would shrug at 4.5 or 4 million lifetime sales like it's not a big drop off. But see, objectively it is. Whether or not you think mediocre is the proper word to use, a sales decrease of 1.5 or 2 million is a lot. And I think Gears will probably face that. My guess is that by the end of the Xbox One era it will be about 1.5-1.3 million behind Gears of War 1, not including whatever digital sales that game garnished. And that's a lot, whether you think that's a "big dip off" or not. Keep in mind, Gears of War 2 and 3 were very popular when digital sales were rising. "

The drop at the start is bad but because of that i think it should have pretty good legs. IF it has 1mil digital by now with MS digital sales cuts they have during the year i can see it selling 500k more. Physical i think it will sell over a million this year. By the end of the gear i can see physical sales at 3.6-3.7m and for the next few years it could hit that 4.5million physical sales. These are just my prediction and youre predicting that it will be 13-1.5 million behind Gear of war 1. Last gen digital sales were way lower for AAA games than they are now but i think Gears 3 could have managed 10-15% digital.

"But again....this is a semantic argument over a sales one. Look, you keep quoting the "extremely mediocre" thing, but let me ask. If I just took the "extremely" part out, would you agree? I don't see how a new Halo title, that's a mainline entry, in an era with huge digital sales, that features master chief, is anything above mediocrity if you are comparing it to a 60$ rip off side game. Like what even. A dip off of millions of copies is technically, objectively, huge."

You wrote earlier that you consider decent sales to be mediocre. The dictionary definition has it as "not very good" or "moderate quality". But if you consider decent to be mediocre then i would agree that Halo 5s sales were decent. Selling better than ODST which sold about on par with Halo 1 would mean that lifetime Halo 5 could be the 4th best selling mainline Halo game which is a drop from 2,3, and 4 but i still think saying its "extremely mediocre" is a bit of a stretch.

"Also, Halo 5 being one of the most "active Halos" is partially true and untrue. It has maintained a population much better than 4, but the way that Halo 5 calculates it's online population is misleading and a lot different than 3 and Reach. Halo 5 calculates Monthly Active Users, which means it counts unique users who log in, no matter how many times they do so, as a user who's played that month. All you have to do to be a MAU is to simply turn on your xbox, sign into Xbox live, and sit in the Halo 5 menu. You don't have to play consistently or play multiplayer or anything like that. Just start the game with the internet on! Considering Halo 5 has consistent updated content, and considering it went free for a limited time and was bundled, it's not really surprising that it has a lot of MAU, but it's such a misleading figure. Halo games used to have specific player counters for multiplayer, showing you how many people are playing what game mode, what playlist etc. 343 didn't add a Halo 5 player counter, because they knew it would cause problems. The figures are misleading and I would bet that Halo 3, Reach, and even 2 had more consistent concurrent player counts in their multiplayer modes than Halo 5 ever has. Oh but of course you can download this free update, check it out for an hour and now bam! You are a figure for a statistic. Even twitter's co founder criticized the statistic. In fact 343 got called out on it, and pretty much acted like they knew the whole time and weren't pulling a PR stunt"

Well why would someone open up a game if they dont intend to play it? Chances are if you open up a game you're going to play it. There is a section of the MX/Xbox store that shows the top most played games of the week and usually Halo 5 is somewhere between 15-20 most played games unless it gets a update it jumps to the top 10. Right now its #20 https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/most-played/games/xbox?target=games..all The games population isstill pretty populated overall.

"Really? Well, I don't know, it really depends. But I think you're widely underestimating Splatoon 2's potential, it couldd be much bigger than Halo 5, or just hover above or below it. Honestly though, I think it will probably do 5-7 mil in it's first year. I don't really see how Battlegrounds being the new hit game makes it excusable for Halo to sell worse? Your point doesn't make sense because you're comparing one version of something. Battlefield and Call of Duty's community has and always will be split between 2(technically 3) platforms. That doesn't excuse Halo which used to be very competitive with the most popular xbox 360 COD's(I'm only using a single platform in this scenario because COD started selling like crazy at the end of the 360 era). Halo's market cap used to be above BF's and now it's below it. Most third party games get a much bigger bonus on PS4 than Xbox One, so your argument is misleading. It used to be the opposite the last gen, where they switched places based on title but were fairly biased."

Splatoon 2 should do pretty and i can see it selling 5 million first year which Halo 5 did in 3 months so that doesn't really help your argument that its passing or doing on par with Halo 5. I was doing the comparison because FIFA, COD, Madden, BF sell well on xbox one and in some cases they are doing better than the last gen predecessors. So comparing Halo 5 to battlegrounds didnt really make sense when you can do the same comparison to other series that are doing very well this gen. Halo this gen is still doing better than BF. VGC has Halo 5 and Halo MCC at 8.17 million while BF1,BF4, and BF Hardline are at 8.05 million.







BraLoD said:
DonFerrari said:

And there will be a LoD remaster before it

The more the merrier

Agreed. Legion of Doom need to return. 



Whoever said life to be like a box of chocolates clearly didn't know what he was talking about. 

Life is more like a game of bumper cars. At every turn there is a possibility you will get screwed.

jason1637 said:

"And to be fair, I went out of my way to include the most positive sales figures I could find for the game. Capcom's last statement is very outdated with the game having sold 1.7 million units as of early 2015. After that point no one was posting easy-to-search articles about the games success. I'm actually weakening my argument to be fair and unbiased...because my point was never that it's sales weren't great or weren't in some way impressive"

Its obvious that we have a different perspective of a game performance to consider it "impressive". I just think that it being the best selling DR game on xbox and being a launch title selling 2.3 million is impressive for the series. You might not see it that way but whatever its just our opinions lol.

"The fact that it's just now at around 4 million means it's taking a long time to hit that demographic, and that's assuming that it's hit 4 million(which btw, you used 25% as the digital attach rate converter but then said tha would prop it up from 3 mil to 4... that's 3,750,000 not 4 but that's just nit picking haha)."

Well it took a while to hit 4 million could be the new developers. People might want to wait because they might not trust them. Also its on PC so that might be taking sone of its console sales. BTW when people talk about digital attach rate it how much digital makes of the total sales. So the game selling 4 million 25% of 4 million is 1 million. That leaves 3 million for physical and VGC has Gears 4 at 3 million. Saying that its total sales is at 3,750,000 would mean it has a 20% digital sales which will be pretty low especially when the game has a high digital attach rate in the US.

"

Considering you think a sales decrease of 37.5% in a 3 month period isn't "mediocre", then I have a feeling you would shrug at 4.5 or 4 million lifetime sales like it's not a big drop off. But see, objectively it is. Whether or not you think mediocre is the proper word to use, a sales decrease of 1.5 or 2 million is a lot. And I think Gears will probably face that. My guess is that by the end of the Xbox One era it will be about 1.5-1.3 million behind Gears of War 1, not including whatever digital sales that game garnished. And that's a lot, whether you think that's a "big dip off" or not. Keep in mind, Gears of War 2 and 3 were very popular when digital sales were rising. "

The drop at the start is bad but because of that i think it should have pretty good legs. IF it has 1mil digital by now with MS digital sales cuts they have during the year i can see it selling 500k more. Physical i think it will sell over a million this year. By the end of the gear i can see physical sales at 3.6-3.7m and for the next few years it could hit that 4.5million physical sales. These are just my prediction and youre predicting that it will be 13-1.5 million behind Gear of war 1. Last gen digital sales were way lower for AAA games than they are now but i think Gears 3 could have managed 10-15% digital.

"But again....this is a semantic argument over a sales one. Look, you keep quoting the "extremely mediocre" thing, but let me ask. If I just took the "extremely" part out, would you agree? I don't see how a new Halo title, that's a mainline entry, in an era with huge digital sales, that features master chief, is anything above mediocrity if you are comparing it to a 60$ rip off side game. Like what even. A dip off of millions of copies is technically, objectively, huge."

You wrote earlier that you consider decent sales to be mediocre. The dictionary definition has it as "not very good" or "moderate quality". But if you consider decent to be mediocre then i would agree that Halo 5s sales were decent. Selling better than ODST which sold about on par with Halo 1 would mean that lifetime Halo 5 could be the 4th best selling mainline Halo game which is a drop from 2,3, and 4 but i still think saying its "extremely mediocre" is a bit of a stretch.

"Also, Halo 5 being one of the most "active Halos" is partially true and untrue. It has maintained a population much better than 4, but the way that Halo 5 calculates it's online population is misleading and a lot different than 3 and Reach. Halo 5 calculates Monthly Active Users, which means it counts unique users who log in, no matter how many times they do so, as a user who's played that month. All you have to do to be a MAU is to simply turn on your xbox, sign into Xbox live, and sit in the Halo 5 menu. You don't have to play consistently or play multiplayer or anything like that. Just start the game with the internet on! Considering Halo 5 has consistent updated content, and considering it went free for a limited time and was bundled, it's not really surprising that it has a lot of MAU, but it's such a misleading figure. Halo games used to have specific player counters for multiplayer, showing you how many people are playing what game mode, what playlist etc. 343 didn't add a Halo 5 player counter, because they knew it would cause problems. The figures are misleading and I would bet that Halo 3, Reach, and even 2 had more consistent concurrent player counts in their multiplayer modes than Halo 5 ever has. Oh but of course you can download this free update, check it out for an hour and now bam! You are a figure for a statistic. Even twitter's co founder criticized the statistic. In fact 343 got called out on it, and pretty much acted like they knew the whole time and weren't pulling a PR stunt"

Well why would someone open up a game if they dont intend to play it? Chances are if you open up a game you're going to play it. There is a section of the MX/Xbox store that shows the top most played games of the week and usually Halo 5 is somewhere between 15-20 most played games unless it gets a update it jumps to the top 10. Right now its #20 https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/most-played/games/xbox?target=games..all The games population isstill pretty populated overall.

"Really? Well, I don't know, it really depends. But I think you're widely underestimating Splatoon 2's potential, it couldd be much bigger than Halo 5, or just hover above or below it. Honestly though, I think it will probably do 5-7 mil in it's first year. I don't really see how Battlegrounds being the new hit game makes it excusable for Halo to sell worse? Your point doesn't make sense because you're comparing one version of something. Battlefield and Call of Duty's community has and always will be split between 2(technically 3) platforms. That doesn't excuse Halo which used to be very competitive with the most popular xbox 360 COD's(I'm only using a single platform in this scenario because COD started selling like crazy at the end of the 360 era). Halo's market cap used to be above BF's and now it's below it. Most third party games get a much bigger bonus on PS4 than Xbox One, so your argument is misleading. It used to be the opposite the last gen, where they switched places based on title but were fairly biased."

Splatoon 2 should do pretty and i can see it selling 5 million first year which Halo 5 did in 3 months so that doesn't really help your argument that its passing or doing on par with Halo 5. I was doing the comparison because FIFA, COD, Madden, BF sell well on xbox one and in some cases they are doing better than the last gen predecessors. So comparing Halo 5 to battlegrounds didnt really make sense when you can do the same comparison to other series that are doing very well this gen. Halo this gen is still doing better than BF. VGC has Halo 5 and Halo MCC at 8.17 million while BF1,BF4, and BF Hardline are at 8.05 million.

"Its obvious that we have a different perspective of a game performance to consider it "impressive". I just think that it being the best selling DR game on xbox and being a launch title selling 2.3 million is impressive for the series. You might not see it that way but whatever its just our opinions lol."

But see I already said it was impressive a few replies ago, just not impressive as a whole. It's only impressive for the series and not for the Xbox. And even then it's not THAT impressive for it's series. As I literally just finished saying last reply, semantics aren't as important as sales, and Dead rising 3 was a "big game" sales wise but not huge for Xbox.

"]Well it took a while to hit 4 million could be the new developers. People might want to wait because they might not trust them. Also its on PC so that might be taking sone of its console sales. BTW when people talk about digital attach rate it how much digital makes of the total sales. So the game selling 4 million 25% of 4 million is 1 million. That leaves 3 million for physical and VGC has Gears 4 at 3 million. Saying that its total sales is at 3,750,000 would mean it has a 20% digital sales which will be pretty low especially when the game has a high digital attach rate in the US."

But see you keep talking about why the sales are low and not how they'll improve. I'm not arguing why they're low, I'm arguing why the sales are a big decline. Personally, I think it's mostly because Judgement and the mishandling of Halo. 

I'm not too sure about the digital thing. I've been thinking of it as a converter, in which digital sales are about 25% of physical sales for console games. Could you link me to the source of the metric you're using for this 25%? Because it really depends, if this 25% is in reference to digital sales compared to physical, or if it's in reference to total sales. If it's in refrence to total sales, you're right, the game would have 1 million digital sales because it would be 25% of the game's total sales. However, if it's in reference to the amount of digital games sold to physical, then you would be wrong, you would take the physical sales and times them by the percentage of digital attach rate. I'll admit i am slightly confuzzled.

"You wrote earlier that you consider decent sales to be mediocre. The dictionary definition has it as "not very good" or "moderate quality". But if you consider decent to be mediocre then i would agree that Halo 5s sales were decent. Selling better than ODST which sold about on par with Halo 1 would mean that lifetime Halo 5 could be the 4th best selling mainline Halo game which is a drop from 2,3, and 4 but i still think saying its "extremely mediocre" is a bit of a stretch."

i'm getting tired at addressing this because at this point you're saying something for no reason. Again, drop the "wording issue" and what you have is an objectively big drop off. Simple as that. I said extremely one fucking time, and you keep bringing it up. I'm not trying to be rude, but I've said mediocre more times than extremely, and i've already addressed the "extreme" part. If you're going to bring that up every response, yoou might as well admit you prefer fallacies to actual discussion, because whether or not I use extreme doesn't change sales figures and i'm pretty sure I already said twice that that wording was hyperbolic. Also " But if you consider decent to be mediocre then i would agree that Halo 5s sales were decent. "  So you agree they were at least mediocre? This is an odd admission for someone defending a game's sales.

""Well why would someone open up a game if they dont intend to play it?"

I've done this multiple times. And actually you're missing the point - even if we assume someone opens up the game and plays it, Halo 5 would still have a misleading player counting system, because it tracks unique users as in how many users play the game at least once(and again it's not a picky system) and not concurrent users or how many users on average are playing multiplayer at any time. The population counter in old Halo games used to give live feedback as to how many people were playing MP, but in Halo 5's system it doesn't track how many people are currently playing MP or how many people are playing concurrentlly on average, it just tracks how many users simply started the programe once in a given month. Considering there's updates it's not hard to believe some months have a spike in unique players for one or two days, and then go back down. And Halo being that low is quite...decent? I don't know, you seem to care more about wording than actual statistics, so i'm not going to give a word but ... I just don't think that's something to smile about.

"Splatoon 2 should do pretty and i can see it selling 5 million first year which Halo 5 did in 3 months so that doesn't really help your argument that its passing or doing on par with Halo 5. "

Huh? I said 5-7 million, you're using the smallest estimate to try and get a free point. You implied 5 million is the max, not me. And Switch will probably sell 8-10 million in it's first year, that attach rate is significantly better than Halo could ever dream of. Add to that that the Switch will sell after the holidays, and that Nintendo games have better legs than any other games in the entire industry, and your point becomes practically irrelevant. In fact  Nintendo is one of the only companies where the "basis" for their games could change widely - looking at BOTW it will probably sell 11 million by the end of it's life. Even when you consider the marketing and western-based world desing, that's an increase in user base by 4 million. I used to be pretty hesitant to think Splatoon 2 would outsell the original by a lot, but considering many people missed Splatoon 1, and Splatoon is still a new franchise, I could honestly see it reaching 8-10 mil lifetime, and 7 mil in it's first 6 months, which is undoubtedly better than Halo. Add to that that this is a new franchise and that Nintendo has way better legs and a consistently expanding user base - and I fail to ssee how you could make a point this flawed. In fact, the fact that we can compare Splatoon to Halo speakks volumes on Halo's downfall. Keep in mind too Splatoon is popular in Japan, where people are still trying to get switchs. Splatoon's japanese sales coul end up 1.5-2 mil in Japan aone.

" I was doing the comparison because FIFA, COD, Madden, BF sell well on xbox one and in some cases they are doing better than the last gen predecessors. So comparing Halo 5 to battlegrounds didnt really make sense when you can do the same comparison to other series that are doing very well this gen. Halo this gen is still doing better than BF. VGC has Halo 5 and Halo MCC at 8.17 million while BF1,BF4, and BF Hardline are at 8.05 million."

this is a case where you put a bunch of points together to try and make an argument when how you string the points together is very misleading. First of all the only series that is for sure up from their last gen counterpart is Madden. Fifa is very debatable because the Xbox 360 version sold about 1.5 million more copies physically, and we don't know if the digital rate(we can't assume it's always the same) makes up for it. So the only series know is up is Madden, but of course if you stated that outright then you would have very little argument.

Wow, saying Halo is above BF...man you are REALLY stretching it with these arguments. First of all, BF1 and Halo 5 are literally matched in physical sales. BF1 has been out for less than a year, Halo 5 has been out for almost 2. Do the math. Secondly, Battlefield is the bigger series, I woudln't be surprised if it's digital sales are much bigger than Halo's. Battlefield 4 was on last gen consoles and sold significantly more physical copies on 360 than One. So what even is this argument? And Hardline was a pretty medicore game sales wise...because it got a lot of backlash. 

When I said "Halo used to be above BF, now it's below it" I was referring to the time period in which Xbox 360 had better or near-parity sales with the PS3 multiplat titles. This means that even when battlefield sold better on xbox than it does now, Halo won over it in the past. Now ? Battlefield has risen above Halo in practical sales. Take away the bundles, the extra year Halo 5 had, and Battlefield 1 most definitely beats out Halo 5. You can kick and scream "total sales total sales!" But let's be honest, Battlefield screwed up with it's first two entries, the last gen versions of BF4 were extremely popular and BF hardine was recieved poorly. And honestly, the digital sales of BF1 are probably far better than Halo's. Keep in mind all of this is a dumb comparison anyways, because third parties used to have equal or better sales on xbox, and now PS4 dominates - and it's not even close. If Halo was beating BF1 on PS4 we'd have something to talk about, becaus it used to do that amount of ownage on the 360..what are you gonna say next? "Halo has better sales than Final fantasy xv on xbox"? Lol




Around the Network
jason1637 said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

But that's exactly what i was saying. Again I don't see what we're arguing about, I'm just saying the sales aren't mindblowing. And to be fair, I went out of my way to include the most positive sales figures I could find for the game. Capcom's last statement is very outdated with the game having sold 1.7 million units as of early 2015. After that point no one was posting easy-to-search articles about the games success. I'm actually weakening my argument to be fair and unbiased...because my point was never that it's sales weren't great or weren't in some way impressive, just that I don't think that's an example where you can prop up an Xbox title and make a good point for Xbox exclusive success.

"Gears 3 legs werent as great as the other Gears game but i think its because a lot of sales came earler" Right..which is what I said. But I also made that case for Gears of War 2...are you going to ignore that just to make a point? Like I said, Gears of War "legs" get worse not because the sales get worse but because more people buy the game early in it's life cycle as the games become more trusted. Considering Gears of War 4 is already a sequel to a well established franchise, and considering it didn't have good foundational sales, it would be nearly impossible to catch up. 

"but i doubt it will be a huge drop for the series" 

Well see this is the problem I have, you care more about semantics and wording then sales numbers. Personally, if Gears 4 sold 6 million by the end of the Xbox's life all I could say is "jeez...it took that long?" Since most Gears games hit a HUGE majority of their target demographic in just a year or two. The fact that it's just now at around 4 million means it's taking a long time to hit that demographic, and that's assuming that it's hit 4 million(which btw, you used 25% as the digital attach rate converter but then said tha would prop it up from 3 mil to 4... that's 3,750,000 not 4 but that's just nit picking haha). But if the game doesn't sell 6 mill, then this argument would be whether "xxx numbers" is a "big drop off". Considering you think a sales decrease of 37.5% in a 3 month period isn't "mediocre", then I have a feeling you would shrug at 4.5 or 4 million lifetime sales like it's not a big drop off. But see, objectively it is. Whether or not you think mediocre is the proper word to use, a sales decrease of 1.5 or 2 million is a lot. And I think Gears will probably face that. My guess is that by the end of the Xbox One era it will be about 1.5-1.3 million behind Gears of War 1, not including whatever digital sales that game garnished. And that's a lot, whether you think that's a "big dip off" or not. Keep in mind, Gears of War 2 and 3 were very popular when digital sales were rising. 

"Halo 5 selling 5 million in 3 months is lower than other Halo games dont get me wrong. But if it hasnt by now it could outsell Halo ODST and Halo 1 which imo doesnt seem "extremely mediocre" for the series. Also not to mention that its one of the most active Halos and had made lots of money for MS and 343 so ira definitly a financial success."

But again....this is a semantic argument over a sales one. Look, you keep quoting the "extremely mediocre" thing, but let me ask. If I just took the "extremely" part out, would you agree? I don't see how a new Halo title, that's a mainline entry, in an era with huge digital sales, that features master chief, is anything above mediocrity if you are comparing it to a 60$ rip off side game. Like what even. A dip off of millions of copies is technically, objectively, huge. This isn't like GTA 6 having 7 million less sales than the 80 million copies sold GTA V. This is Halo, and selling a few million less is objectively big, whether or not you choose one word over the other.

Also, Halo 5 being one of the most "active Halos" is partially true and untrue. It has maintained a population much better than 4, but the way that Halo 5 calculates it's online population is misleading and a lot different than 3 and Reach. Halo 5 calculates Monthly Active Users, which means it counts unique users who log in, no matter how many times they do so, as a user who's played that month. All you have to do to be a MAU is to simply turn on your xbox, sign into Xbox live, and sit in the Halo 5 menu. You don't have to play consistently or play multiplayer or anything like that. Just start the game with the internet on! Considering Halo 5 has consistent updated content, and considering it went free for a limited time and was bundled, it's not really surprising that it has a lot of MAU, but it's such a misleading figure. Halo games used to have specific player counters for multiplayer, showing you how many people are playing what game mode, what playlist etc. 343 didn't add a Halo 5 player counter, because they knew it would cause problems. The figures are misleading and I would bet that Halo 3, Reach, and even 2 had more consistent concurrent player counts in their multiplayer modes than Halo 5 ever has. Oh but of course you can download this free update, check it out for an hour and now bam! You are a figure for a statistic. Even twitter's co founder criticized the statistic. In fact 343 got called out on it, and pretty much acted like they knew the whole time and weren't pulling a PR stunt

"Following 343’s statement, the Halo population statistics have become widely discussed on the TeamBeyond forums (check out the pages before and after that particular page as well).

According to several TeamBeyond forum users, Halo 5: Guardians doesn’t come anywhere close in terms of population to Halo 3. One user even stated that Halo Reach was far more popular than Halo 5.

The studio head was asked why 343 has been so anxious when it comes to Halo 5’s population numbers since they have been stating that those numbers have been quite amazing.  Holmes replied that those numbers could probobaly be gathered from the public Halo 5 API program which gives players tools to access game data. 343 however, decided not display those numbers in game due to players focusing on them too much.

Notice how they don't address Reach(wtf how do i get rid of  this font)

" Splatoon 2 outsold Halo 5 in japan but i doubt it will outperform it. Battlegrounds is a new hit game. Its already outsold the XB1 version of CO IW, and AW, and BF1. Also FIFA, madden etc."

Really? Well, I don't know, it really depends. But I think you're widely underestimating Splatoon 2's potential, it couldd be much bigger than Halo 5, or just hover above or below it. Honestly though, I think it will probably do 5-7 mil in it's first year. I don't really see how Battlegrounds being the new hit game makes it excusable for Halo to sell worse? Your point doesn't make sense because you're comparing one version of something. Battlefield and Call of Duty's community has and always will be split between 2(technically 3) platforms. That doesn't excuse Halo which used to be very competitive with the most popular xbox 360 COD's(I'm only using a single platform in this scenario because COD started selling like crazy at the end of the 360 era). Halo's market cap used to be above BF's and now it's below it. Most third party games get a much bigger bonus on PS4 than Xbox One, so your argument is misleading. It used to be the opposite the last gen, where they switched places based on title but were fairly biased.

"Oh by your first post you didnt specify that you meant heavy hitters or big games so i just mentioned games that were xbox eclusive."

Well I said "and people laugh when I say xbox games don't sell", so if you want to include those you can, but a remaster collection and an indie title ... idk just seems like a reach. But it is fair game : P 

"And to be fair, I went out of my way to include the most positive sales figures I could find for the game. Capcom's last statement is very outdated with the game having sold 1.7 million units as of early 2015. After that point no one was posting easy-to-search articles about the games success. I'm actually weakening my argument to be fair and unbiased...because my point was never that it's sales weren't great or weren't in some way impressive"

Its obvious that we have a different perspective of a game performance to consider it "impressive". I just think that it being the best selling DR game on xbox and being a launch title selling 2.3 million is impressive for the series. You might not see it that way but whatever its just our opinions lol.

"The fact that it's just now at around 4 million means it's taking a long time to hit that demographic, and that's assuming that it's hit 4 million(which btw, you used 25% as the digital attach rate converter but then said tha would prop it up from 3 mil to 4... that's 3,750,000 not 4 but that's just nit picking haha)."

Well it took a while to hit 4 million could be the new developers. People might want to wait because they might not trust them. Also its on PC so that might be taking sone of its console sales. BTW when people talk about digital attach rate it how much digital makes of the total sales. So the game selling 4 million 25% of 4 million is 1 million. That leaves 3 million for physical and VGC has Gears 4 at 3 million. Saying that its total sales is at 3,750,000 would mean it has a 20% digital sales which will be pretty low especially when the game has a high digital attach rate in the US.

"

Considering you think a sales decrease of 37.5% in a 3 month period isn't "mediocre", then I have a feeling you would shrug at 4.5 or 4 million lifetime sales like it's not a big drop off. But see, objectively it is. Whether or not you think mediocre is the proper word to use, a sales decrease of 1.5 or 2 million is a lot. And I think Gears will probably face that. My guess is that by the end of the Xbox One era it will be about 1.5-1.3 million behind Gears of War 1, not including whatever digital sales that game garnished. And that's a lot, whether you think that's a "big dip off" or not. Keep in mind, Gears of War 2 and 3 were very popular when digital sales were rising. "

The drop at the start is bad but because of that i think it should have pretty good legs. IF it has 1mil digital by now with MS digital sales cuts they have during the year i can see it selling 500k more. Physical i think it will sell over a million this year. By the end of the gear i can see physical sales at 3.6-3.7m and for the next few years it could hit that 4.5million physical sales. These are just my prediction and youre predicting that it will be 13-1.5 million behind Gear of war 1. Last gen digital sales were way lower for AAA games than they are now but i think Gears 3 could have managed 10-15% digital.

"But again....this is a semantic argument over a sales one. Look, you keep quoting the "extremely mediocre" thing, but let me ask. If I just took the "extremely" part out, would you agree? I don't see how a new Halo title, that's a mainline entry, in an era with huge digital sales, that features master chief, is anything above mediocrity if you are comparing it to a 60$ rip off side game. Like what even. A dip off of millions of copies is technically, objectively, huge."

You wrote earlier that you consider decent sales to be mediocre. The dictionary definition has it as "not very good" or "moderate quality". But if you consider decent to be mediocre then i would agree that Halo 5s sales were decent. Selling better than ODST which sold about on par with Halo 1 would mean that lifetime Halo 5 could be the 4th best selling mainline Halo game which is a drop from 2,3, and 4 but i still think saying its "extremely mediocre" is a bit of a stretch.

"Also, Halo 5 being one of the most "active Halos" is partially true and untrue. It has maintained a population much better than 4, but the way that Halo 5 calculates it's online population is misleading and a lot different than 3 and Reach. Halo 5 calculates Monthly Active Users, which means it counts unique users who log in, no matter how many times they do so, as a user who's played that month. All you have to do to be a MAU is to simply turn on your xbox, sign into Xbox live, and sit in the Halo 5 menu. You don't have to play consistently or play multiplayer or anything like that. Just start the game with the internet on! Considering Halo 5 has consistent updated content, and considering it went free for a limited time and was bundled, it's not really surprising that it has a lot of MAU, but it's such a misleading figure. Halo games used to have specific player counters for multiplayer, showing you how many people are playing what game mode, what playlist etc. 343 didn't add a Halo 5 player counter, because they knew it would cause problems. The figures are misleading and I would bet that Halo 3, Reach, and even 2 had more consistent concurrent player counts in their multiplayer modes than Halo 5 ever has. Oh but of course you can download this free update, check it out for an hour and now bam! You are a figure for a statistic. Even twitter's co founder criticized the statistic. In fact 343 got called out on it, and pretty much acted like they knew the whole time and weren't pulling a PR stunt"

Well why would someone open up a game if they dont intend to play it? Chances are if you open up a game you're going to play it. There is a section of the MX/Xbox store that shows the top most played games of the week and usually Halo 5 is somewhere between 15-20 most played games unless it gets a update it jumps to the top 10. Right now its #20 https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/most-played/games/xbox?target=games..all The games population isstill pretty populated overall.

"Really? Well, I don't know, it really depends. But I think you're widely underestimating Splatoon 2's potential, it couldd be much bigger than Halo 5, or just hover above or below it. Honestly though, I think it will probably do 5-7 mil in it's first year. I don't really see how Battlegrounds being the new hit game makes it excusable for Halo to sell worse? Your point doesn't make sense because you're comparing one version of something. Battlefield and Call of Duty's community has and always will be split between 2(technically 3) platforms. That doesn't excuse Halo which used to be very competitive with the most popular xbox 360 COD's(I'm only using a single platform in this scenario because COD started selling like crazy at the end of the 360 era). Halo's market cap used to be above BF's and now it's below it. Most third party games get a much bigger bonus on PS4 than Xbox One, so your argument is misleading. It used to be the opposite the last gen, where they switched places based on title but were fairly biased."

Splatoon 2 should do pretty and i can see it selling 5 million first year which Halo 5 did in 3 months so that doesn't really help your argument that its passing or doing on par with Halo 5. I was doing the comparison because FIFA, COD, Madden, BF sell well on xbox one and in some cases they are doing better than the last gen predecessors. So comparing Halo 5 to battlegrounds didnt really make sense when you can do the same comparison to other series that are doing very well this gen. Halo this gen is still doing better than BF. VGC has Halo 5 and Halo MCC at 8.17 million while BF1,BF4, and BF Hardline are at 8.05 million.

Again having 5 mainline Halos and it reaching 4th is exactly what means to be below mediocre (average). The median would be 3rd and if we were to look at the average sales, it would be even lower positioned.

And sorry to burst your bubble but usually having a weaker start is even more evidence of bad legs.

The cases where slow starts become great legs involve new IP that took sometime to get noteworthy (lack of hype) or maybe a sequel that totally inovated itself (quite rare). Outside of that usually each new sequel will be even more frontloaded. So doing worse on short term will lead to worse long term, so you can't defend that it will do good because maybe on a wishfull tough it can increase its leg without any evidence.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

At this point I think people would accept a Super Street Fighter V, with multiplatform release.



AngryLittleAlchemist said:
jason1637 said:

"And to be fair, I went out of my way to include the most positive sales figures I could find for the game. Capcom's last statement is very outdated with the game having sold 1.7 million units as of early 2015. After that point no one was posting easy-to-search articles about the games success. I'm actually weakening my argument to be fair and unbiased...because my point was never that it's sales weren't great or weren't in some way impressive"

Its obvious that we have a different perspective of a game performance to consider it "impressive". I just think that it being the best selling DR game on xbox and being a launch title selling 2.3 million is impressive for the series. You might not see it that way but whatever its just our opinions lol.

"The fact that it's just now at around 4 million means it's taking a long time to hit that demographic, and that's assuming that it's hit 4 million(which btw, you used 25% as the digital attach rate converter but then said tha would prop it up from 3 mil to 4... that's 3,750,000 not 4 but that's just nit picking haha)."

Well it took a while to hit 4 million could be the new developers. People might want to wait because they might not trust them. Also its on PC so that might be taking sone of its console sales. BTW when people talk about digital attach rate it how much digital makes of the total sales. So the game selling 4 million 25% of 4 million is 1 million. That leaves 3 million for physical and VGC has Gears 4 at 3 million. Saying that its total sales is at 3,750,000 would mean it has a 20% digital sales which will be pretty low especially when the game has a high digital attach rate in the US.

"

Considering you think a sales decrease of 37.5% in a 3 month period isn't "mediocre", then I have a feeling you would shrug at 4.5 or 4 million lifetime sales like it's not a big drop off. But see, objectively it is. Whether or not you think mediocre is the proper word to use, a sales decrease of 1.5 or 2 million is a lot. And I think Gears will probably face that. My guess is that by the end of the Xbox One era it will be about 1.5-1.3 million behind Gears of War 1, not including whatever digital sales that game garnished. And that's a lot, whether you think that's a "big dip off" or not. Keep in mind, Gears of War 2 and 3 were very popular when digital sales were rising. "

The drop at the start is bad but because of that i think it should have pretty good legs. IF it has 1mil digital by now with MS digital sales cuts they have during the year i can see it selling 500k more. Physical i think it will sell over a million this year. By the end of the gear i can see physical sales at 3.6-3.7m and for the next few years it could hit that 4.5million physical sales. These are just my prediction and youre predicting that it will be 13-1.5 million behind Gear of war 1. Last gen digital sales were way lower for AAA games than they are now but i think Gears 3 could have managed 10-15% digital.

"But again....this is a semantic argument over a sales one. Look, you keep quoting the "extremely mediocre" thing, but let me ask. If I just took the "extremely" part out, would you agree? I don't see how a new Halo title, that's a mainline entry, in an era with huge digital sales, that features master chief, is anything above mediocrity if you are comparing it to a 60$ rip off side game. Like what even. A dip off of millions of copies is technically, objectively, huge."

You wrote earlier that you consider decent sales to be mediocre. The dictionary definition has it as "not very good" or "moderate quality". But if you consider decent to be mediocre then i would agree that Halo 5s sales were decent. Selling better than ODST which sold about on par with Halo 1 would mean that lifetime Halo 5 could be the 4th best selling mainline Halo game which is a drop from 2,3, and 4 but i still think saying its "extremely mediocre" is a bit of a stretch.

"Also, Halo 5 being one of the most "active Halos" is partially true and untrue. It has maintained a population much better than 4, but the way that Halo 5 calculates it's online population is misleading and a lot different than 3 and Reach. Halo 5 calculates Monthly Active Users, which means it counts unique users who log in, no matter how many times they do so, as a user who's played that month. All you have to do to be a MAU is to simply turn on your xbox, sign into Xbox live, and sit in the Halo 5 menu. You don't have to play consistently or play multiplayer or anything like that. Just start the game with the internet on! Considering Halo 5 has consistent updated content, and considering it went free for a limited time and was bundled, it's not really surprising that it has a lot of MAU, but it's such a misleading figure. Halo games used to have specific player counters for multiplayer, showing you how many people are playing what game mode, what playlist etc. 343 didn't add a Halo 5 player counter, because they knew it would cause problems. The figures are misleading and I would bet that Halo 3, Reach, and even 2 had more consistent concurrent player counts in their multiplayer modes than Halo 5 ever has. Oh but of course you can download this free update, check it out for an hour and now bam! You are a figure for a statistic. Even twitter's co founder criticized the statistic. In fact 343 got called out on it, and pretty much acted like they knew the whole time and weren't pulling a PR stunt"

Well why would someone open up a game if they dont intend to play it? Chances are if you open up a game you're going to play it. There is a section of the MX/Xbox store that shows the top most played games of the week and usually Halo 5 is somewhere between 15-20 most played games unless it gets a update it jumps to the top 10. Right now its #20 https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/most-played/games/xbox?target=games..all The games population isstill pretty populated overall.

"Really? Well, I don't know, it really depends. But I think you're widely underestimating Splatoon 2's potential, it couldd be much bigger than Halo 5, or just hover above or below it. Honestly though, I think it will probably do 5-7 mil in it's first year. I don't really see how Battlegrounds being the new hit game makes it excusable for Halo to sell worse? Your point doesn't make sense because you're comparing one version of something. Battlefield and Call of Duty's community has and always will be split between 2(technically 3) platforms. That doesn't excuse Halo which used to be very competitive with the most popular xbox 360 COD's(I'm only using a single platform in this scenario because COD started selling like crazy at the end of the 360 era). Halo's market cap used to be above BF's and now it's below it. Most third party games get a much bigger bonus on PS4 than Xbox One, so your argument is misleading. It used to be the opposite the last gen, where they switched places based on title but were fairly biased."

Splatoon 2 should do pretty and i can see it selling 5 million first year which Halo 5 did in 3 months so that doesn't really help your argument that its passing or doing on par with Halo 5. I was doing the comparison because FIFA, COD, Madden, BF sell well on xbox one and in some cases they are doing better than the last gen predecessors. So comparing Halo 5 to battlegrounds didnt really make sense when you can do the same comparison to other series that are doing very well this gen. Halo this gen is still doing better than BF. VGC has Halo 5 and Halo MCC at 8.17 million while BF1,BF4, and BF Hardline are at 8.05 million.

"Its obvious that we have a different perspective of a game performance to consider it "impressive". I just think that it being the best selling DR game on xbox and being a launch title selling 2.3 million is impressive for the series. You might not see it that way but whatever its just our opinions lol."

But see I already said it was impressive a few replies ago, just not impressive as a whole. It's only impressive for the series and not for the Xbox. And even then it's not THAT impressive for it's series. As I literally just finished saying last reply, semantics aren't as important as sales, and Dead rising 3 was a "big game" sales wise but not huge for Xbox.

"Well it took a while to hit 4 million could be the new developers. People might want to wait because they might not trust them. Also its on PC so that might be taking sone of its console sales. BTW when people talk about digital attach rate it how much digital makes of the total sales. So the game selling 4 million 25% of 4 million is 1 million. That leaves 3 million for physical and VGC has Gears 4 at 3 million. Saying that its total sales is at 3,750,000 would mean it has a 20% digital sales which will be pretty low especially when the game has a high digital attach rate in the US."

But see you keep talking about why the sales are low and not how they'll improve. I'm not arguing why they're low, I'm arguing why the sales are a big decline. Personally, I think it's mostly because Judgement and the mishandling of Halo. 

I'm not too sure about the digital thing. I've been thinking of it as a converter, in which digital sales are about 25% of physical sales for console games. Could you link me to the source of the metric you're using for this 25%? Because it really depends, if this 25% is in reference to digital sales compared to physical, or if it's in reference to total sales. If it's in refrence to total sales, you're right, the game would have 1 million digital sales because it would be 25% of the game's total sales. However, if it's in reference to the amount of digital games sold to physical, then you would be wrong, you would take the physical sales and times them by the percentage of digital attach rate. I'll admit i am slightly confuzzled.

"You wrote earlier that you consider decent sales to be mediocre. The dictionary definition has it as "not very good" or "moderate quality". But if you consider decent to be mediocre then i would agree that Halo 5s sales were decent. Selling better than ODST which sold about on par with Halo 1 would mean that lifetime Halo 5 could be the 4th best selling mainline Halo game which is a drop from 2,3, and 4 but i still think saying its "extremely mediocre" is a bit of a stretch."

i'm getting tired at addressing this because at this point you're saying something for no reason. Again, drop the "wording issue" and what you have is an objectively big drop off. Simple as that. I said extremely one fucking time, and you keep bringing it up. I'm not trying to be rude, but I've said mediocre more times than extremely, and i've already addressed the "extreme" part. If you're going to bring that up every response, yoou might as well admit you prefer fallacies to actual discussion, because whether or not I use extreme doesn't change sales figures and i'm pretty sure I already said twice that that wording was hyperbolic. Also " But if you consider decent to be mediocre then i would agree that Halo 5s sales were decent. "  So you agree they were at least mediocre? This is an odd admission for someone defending a game's sales.

"Well why would someone open up a game if they dont intend to play it?"

I've done this multiple times. And actually you're missing the point - even if we assume someone opens up the game and plays it, Halo 5 would still have a misleading player counting system, because it tracks unique users as in how many users play the game at least once(and again it's not a picky system) and not concurrent users or how many users on average are playing multiplayer at any time. The population counter in old Halo games used to give live feedback as to how many people were playing MP, but in Halo 5's system it doesn't track how many people are currently playing MP or how many people are playing concurrentlly on average, it just tracks how many users simply started the programe once in a given month. Considering there's updates it's not hard to believe some months have a spike in unique players for one or two days, and then go back down. And Halo being that low is quite...decent? I don't know, you seem to care more about wording than actual statistics, so i'm not going to give a word but ... I just don't think that's something to smile about.

"Splatoon 2 should do pretty and i can see it selling 5 million first year which Halo 5 did in 3 months so that doesn't really help your argument that its passing or doing on par with Halo 5. "

Huh? I said 5-7 million, you're using the smallest estimate to try and get a free point. You implied 5 million is the max, not me. And Switch will probably sell 8-10 million in it's first year, that attach rate is significantly better than Halo could ever dream of. Add to that that the Switch will sell after the holidays, and that Nintendo games have better legs than any other games in the entire industry, and your point becomes practically irrelevant. In fact  Nintendo is one of the only companies where the "basis" for their games could change widely - looking at BOTW it will probably sell 11 million by the end of it's life. Even when you consider the marketing and western-based world desing, that's an increase in user base by 4 million. I used to be pretty hesitant to think Splatoon 2 would outsell the original by a lot, but considering many people missed Splatoon 1, and Splatoon is still a new franchise, I could honestly see it reaching 8-10 mil lifetime, and 7 mil in it's first 6 months, which is undoubtedly better than Halo. Add to that that this is a new franchise and that Nintendo has way better legs and a consistently expanding user base - and I fail to ssee how you could make a point this flawed. In fact, the fact that we can compare Splatoon to Halo speakks volumes on Halo's downfall. Keep in mind too Splatoon is popular in Japan, where people are still trying to get switchs. Splatoon's japanese sales coul end up 1.5-2 mil in Japan aone.

" I was doing the comparison because FIFA, COD, Madden, BF sell well on xbox one and in some cases they are doing better than the last gen predecessors. So comparing Halo 5 to battlegrounds didnt really make sense when you can do the same comparison to other series that are doing very well this gen. Halo this gen is still doing better than BF. VGC has Halo 5 and Halo MCC at 8.17 million while BF1,BF4, and BF Hardline are at 8.05 million."

this is a case where you put a bunch of points together to try and make an argument when how you string the points together is very misleading. First of all the only series that is for sure up from their last gen counterpart is Madden. Fifa is very debatable because the Xbox 360 version sold about 1.5 million more copies physically, and we don't know if the digital rate(we can't assume it's always the same) makes up for it. So the only series know is up is Madden, but of course if you stated that outright then you would have very little argument.

Wow, saying Halo is above BF...man you are REALLY stretching it with these arguments. First of all, BF1 and Halo 5 are literally matched in physical sales. BF1 has been out for less than a year, Halo 5 has been out for almost 2. Do the math. Secondly, Battlefield is the bigger series, I woudln't be surprised if it's digital sales are much bigger than Halo's. Battlefield 4 was on last gen consoles and sold significantly more physical copies on 360 than One. So what even is this argument? And Hardline was a pretty medicore game sales wise...because it got a lot of backlash. 

When I said "Halo used to be above BF, now it's below it" I was referring to the time period in which Xbox 360 had better or near-parity sales with the PS3 multiplat titles. This means that even when battlefield sold better on xbox than it does now, Halo won over it in the past. Now ? Battlefield has risen above Halo in practical sales. Take away the bundles, the extra year Halo 5 had, and Battlefield 1 most definitely beats out Halo 5. You can kick and scream "total sales total sales!" But let's be honest, Battlefield screwed up with it's first two entries, the last gen versions of BF4 were extremely popular and BF hardine was recieved poorly. And honestly, the digital sales of BF1 are probably far better than Halo's. Keep in mind all of this is a dumb comparison anyways, because third parties used to have equal or better sales on xbox, and now PS4 dominates - and it's not even close. If Halo was beating BF1 on PS4 we'd have something to talk about, becaus it used to do that amount of ownage on the 360..what are you gonna say next? "Halo has better sales than Final fantasy xv on xbox"? Lol


digital attach ratio is meant as a measure of digital/total sales. so 25% digital attach ratio is 1 digital for each 3 physical. But unless direct given by company or respectable source I ignore any inference of digital sales because they usually strech it to meet an agenda... I have see guys putting Halo5 digital attach ratio to over 50% (some even 80%) to make someone believe it crossed 10 or 12M sales.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said:

digital attach ratio is meant as a measure of digital/total sales. so 25% digital attach ratio is 1 digital for each 3 physical. But unless direct given by company or respectable source I ignore any inference of digital sales because they usually strech it to meet an agenda... I have see guys putting Halo5 digital attach ratio to over 50% (some even 80%) to make someone believe it crossed 10 or 12M sales.

Yeah ok. At this point this thread is simply getting too messy. I respect the fact that this discussion has been fairly civil, but defending Xbox One exclusives essentially requires a lot of non-points and mental gymnastics.

I might have to result to using multiquotes for one user, but then i'll be yelled at by mods : p 



To have a fair software comparison between X1 and 360 titles still involves multiplication of some type since the X1 has sold 1/3 less hardware.  Plus the software totals are much more incomplete on the X1 since a lot people buy their games digital now.  On the 360 a lot of people never bought their games digitially or only a small amount espeically the people that only had a 20GB or 60GB HDD.  Running out of HDD on the X1 is easly solved since it takes almost no effort to expand you HDD space via a external HDD.