Quantcast
Sony first Party games sales, A huge leap from PS3 era. ( Entered Ninty Level ) Update: GOW at 10m & Uncharted 4 16M

Forums - Sony Discussion - Sony first Party games sales, A huge leap from PS3 era. ( Entered Ninty Level ) Update: GOW at 10m & Uncharted 4 16M

DonFerrari said:

You should avoid calling others lying.

Prices doesn't matter because only Nintendo keeps their price, and instead of being criticized by it get applauded by the fanbase, figures.

The point on the Last of Us was that it shouldn't count as 10M seller on PS4 because it released on PS3. So if at the time Sony announced 17M TLOU it had sold little more than 7M it is all but certain it crossed 10M on PS4 by now. So it count as 10M seller. Also if someone have gone and bought 2 times or more a game that just shows the game is considered great as no one would double dip on something he didn't like. Every company would make double or triple dips if they could.

Should we also just count the first year of sale because some people double dip on GOTY editions and the like?


You claimed everyone you know bought it twice, so if you say he is lying for none of his friends buying it then you should look at yourself lying as well.

He is from Brazil, and it is very uncommon for people here to even buy many games, much less double dip. Also along the very small subset of doubledippers I would say even less would keep both copies instead of reselling it.


More or less. Several of the 3rd party exclusives after becoming MP had majority of the userbase still under Sony, just look at sales. Also PD, SSM, ND and Japan Studio were already around before MS was doing anything noteworthy with 3rd parties.

The success of exclusives on PS4 have more to do with Sony reducing the output (in PS3 they claimed from 10 games 6 would lose money, 2 break even and just 2 sell really well).

You may say you aren't trying to downplay Sony success this gen on the SW, but it certainly looks just like it.

Price matters because you are comparing Sony and Nintendo game sales. If you are going to say they have entered Nintendo level sales than, they either need to start selling a lot more than they are or maintain these sales at a higher price point. Also who applauds Nintendo for not reducing prices, it's a very common complaint.

I didn't mean that 10 million didn't count I meant that 17 million didn't count. I probably should have worded that better. The goty point is just silly, that's just an incredibly tiny fraction that do that. 

I never claimed everyone I know double dipped I said most people I know that had it on ps3 got it again on ps4. I wouldn't say that because I just bought the game once on ps4. To quote you "you should avoid calling others liars".

The Brazil point makes sense. Although I did mention that it is more common in the US and Europe Sony's 2 largest markets.

Ok, i never said games that became multiplat didn't sell better on ps3. I never said those developers werent around and i never said that Sony didn't make 1st party content in the past. I said the larger focus on 1st party content since ps3 has paid off this gen.

I'm not trying to downplay Sony's 1st party sales, they just aren't at Nintendo levels yet. I've bought all of the games listed in the op. I enjoy most of Sony 1st party content and hope they continue to grow. I'll quote you again "you should avoid calling others liars"



Around the Network
pikashoe said:
DonFerrari said:

You should avoid calling others lying.

Prices doesn't matter because only Nintendo keeps their price, and instead of being criticized by it get applauded by the fanbase, figures.

The point on the Last of Us was that it shouldn't count as 10M seller on PS4 because it released on PS3. So if at the time Sony announced 17M TLOU it had sold little more than 7M it is all but certain it crossed 10M on PS4 by now. So it count as 10M seller. Also if someone have gone and bought 2 times or more a game that just shows the game is considered great as no one would double dip on something he didn't like. Every company would make double or triple dips if they could.

Should we also just count the first year of sale because some people double dip on GOTY editions and the like?


You claimed everyone you know bought it twice, so if you say he is lying for none of his friends buying it then you should look at yourself lying as well.

He is from Brazil, and it is very uncommon for people here to even buy many games, much less double dip. Also along the very small subset of doubledippers I would say even less would keep both copies instead of reselling it.

More or less. Several of the 3rd party exclusives after becoming MP had majority of the userbase still under Sony, just look at sales. Also PD, SSM, ND and Japan Studio were already around before MS was doing anything noteworthy with 3rd parties.

The success of exclusives on PS4 have more to do with Sony reducing the output (in PS3 they claimed from 10 games 6 would lose money, 2 break even and just 2 sell really well).

You may say you aren't trying to downplay Sony success this gen on the SW, but it certainly looks just like it.

Price matters because you are comparing Sony and Nintendo game sales. If you are going to say they have entered Nintendo level sales than, they either need to start selling a lot more than they are or maintain these sales at a higher price point. Also who applauds Nintendo for not reducing prices, it's a very common complaint.

I didn't mean that 10 million didn't count I meant that 17 million didn't count. I probably should have worded that better. The goty point is just silly, that's just an incredibly tiny fraction that do that. 

I never claimed everyone I know double dipped I said most people I know that had it on ps3 got it again on ps4. I wouldn't say that because I just bought the game once on ps4. To quote you "you should avoid calling others liars".

The Brazil point makes sense. Although I did mention that it is more common in the US and Europe Sony's 2 largest markets.

Ok, i never said games that became multiplat didn't sell better on ps3. I never said those developers werent around and i never said that Sony didn't make 1st party content in the past. I said the larger focus on 1st party content since ps3 has paid off this gen.

I'm not trying to downplay Sony's 1st party sales, they just aren't at Nintendo levels yet. I've bought all of the games listed in the op. I enjoy most of Sony 1st party content and hope they continue to grow. I'll quote you again "you should avoid calling others liars"

Yes I'll be sure to remember to put tangent points when anyone talk good of Nintendo. Nintendo is the odd man out on SW pricing. And there are companies that sell much more than Nintendo and Sony but on fewer number of titles. Also most of the sales happen on the first couple months, so not affected by pricing. From the number of posts you have you seem to participate very little on threads. There have been more defense for Nintendo pricing than complain as have been more defense for they going for lower power and simpler graphics. There is seemly a majority of Nintendo fanbase in VGC and mostly supporting more than criticizing. Even on the points that are blatantly criticizable.

You have no way to demonstrate how many double dip on GOTY or remaster so it is pointless. And he have conceeded from the beggining that TLOU probably wouldn't sell 17M without being in 2 systems. But the major point was before and regarded it not being acceptable as a 10M on PS4.

I haven't said you are a liar, just that you claiming he was lying when you made an equivalent opposite post. How much percentage of your friends make for ALMOST EVERYONE?

You mentioned after claiming he was a liar and he having to say he isn't, like twice.

Not sure why you are putting twice the avoid calling other liars as I didn't say you are a liar a single time. What are you trying to imply here?



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

Kerotan said:
VAMatt said:

It depends on your definition of successful.  But, in terms of legacy, general impact on gaming, and importance to the platform holder, Halo is definitely the most significant non-Nintendo first-party IP.  It's second only to the Mario family (though it is a distant second).  

Halo has lost a lot of it's shine.  But, that doesn't erase how big of a deal it has been, or the impact it had.

 

Halo is no longer that. 10 years ago it might have been second to Mario but not anymore. 

It certainly isn't the second biggest today.  But, I think it is the second biggest in history, using the criteria I mentioned.  



VAMatt said:
Kerotan said:

Halo is no longer that. 10 years ago it might have been second to Mario but not anymore. 

It certainly isn't the second biggest today.  But, I think it is the second biggest in history, using the criteria I mentioned.  

If we want to talk history we would have to put either Gran Turismo or Final Fantasy on that. Both have had impact greater than Halo and sold more as well.

Sure none were the sole reason to own the system as there were plenty more good on it, but impact per see they win. FF VII single handily put PS ahead of N64 and GT created sim racing basically alone and never dropped from leading 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:
VAMatt said:

It certainly isn't the second biggest today.  But, I think it is the second biggest in history, using the criteria I mentioned.  

If we want to talk history we would have to put either Gran Turismo or Final Fantasy on that. Both have had impact greater than Halo and sold more as well.

Sure none were the sole reason to own the system as there were plenty more good on it, but impact per see they win. FF VII single handily put PS ahead of N64 and GT created sim racing basically alone and never dropped from leading sales. 

You should pay attention to the criteria I used.  It makes all the difference.

Final Fantasy isn't a first-party game, so it doesn't meet the criteria.

As for GT, I don't think it has had anywhere near the impact of Halo.  GT heavily influenced sim racers, so one could say it is directly responsible for the existence of Forza (which is, arguably, MS' biggest IP right now). That's about where its influence stops though, at least in terms of top-tier, AAA stuff.  But, Halo established (didn't invent, but did push to the forefront) the dominance of an entire genre of games that really pushed gaming forward.  It made online competitive shooter play a thing, which in turn brought about the dominance of CoD (unarguably the most commercially important series ever).  FPS' are, in many ways, the most commercially important genre ever, and certainly they're the most important for the growth of online gaming.  All of that is owed, in large part, to Halo.  You've really had FPS' and sports games that pushed gaming into the lives of every young male with the financial means to afford the hobby.  FPS' all owe a debt to Halo, and gaming in general owes a debt to FPS'.  I just don't see GT as being in the same ballpark (not that its not significant, but that it just didn't have the widespread impact of Halo).   



Around the Network
VAMatt said:
DonFerrari said:

If we want to talk history we would have to put either Gran Turismo or Final Fantasy on that. Both have had impact greater than Halo and sold more as well.

Sure none were the sole reason to own the system as there were plenty more good on it, but impact per see they win. FF VII single handily put PS ahead of N64 and GT created sim racing basically alone and never dropped from leading sales. 

You should pay attention to the criteria I used.  It makes all the difference.

Final Fantasy isn't a first-party game, so it doesn't meet the criteria.

As for GT, I don't think it has had anywhere near the impact of Halo.  GT heavily influenced sim racers, so one could say it is directly responsible for the existence of Forza (which is, arguably, MS' biggest IP right now). That's about where its influence stops though, at least in terms of top-tier, AAA stuff.  But, Halo established (didn't invent, but did push to the forefront) the dominance of an entire genre of games that really pushed gaming forward.  It made online competitive shooter play a thing, which in turn brought about the dominance of CoD (unarguably the most commercially important series ever).  FPS' are, in many ways, the most commercially important genre ever, and certainly they're the most important for the growth of online gaming.  All of that is owed, in large part, to Halo.  You've really had FPS' and sports games that pushed gaming into the lives of every young male with the financial means to afford the hobby.  FPS' all owe a debt to Halo, and gaming in general owes a debt to FPS'.  I just don't see GT as being in the same ballpark (not that its not significant, but that it just didn't have the widespread impact of Halo).   

We can remove or give significance however we choose, like GT have sold more than Halo, have longer heritage, and still selling more than it. Also it dominates its genre since inception until today. Was for about 3 gens also the highest selling 1st party game for Sony.

There were FPS and there were multiplayer local and over internet (even on consoles) before Halo. Sure it is the one that made competitive FPS multiplayer on consoles, but we can take as much impact from it as you did for GT, you see. 



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

https://twitter.com/ZhugeEX/status/1130663844454514688/photo/1

Last edited by NoCtiS_NoX - on 21 May 2019

A copy of Uncharted 4 costs 17 dollars on Amazon. The day Sony is able sell their games at full price years after their releases is the day they (sony) enter Nintendo level. So far that hasn't happened.



NoCtiS_NoX said:

https://twitter.com/ZhugeEX/status/1130663844454514688/photo/1

That quite impressive. Sony has so many 10M+ million exclusives seller now, that's how you do it right. Congratulations.



Valdney said:
A copy of Uncharted 4 costs 17 dollars on Amazon. The day Sony is able sell their games at full price years after their releases is the day they (sony) enter Nintendo level. So far that hasn't happened.

Users like you act as if any Nintendo game sells 15+M without bundles and/or price cut

Please name me how many Nintendo home console games in the last 20 years have sold more than 15M at full price without bundles. Thank you in advance....