I've always known Star Ocean was never a big franchise.

[mrstickball]

blazinhead89 said:

mrstickball said:
I think it's far too early to really be proclaiming anything. Do we know what Star Ocean 3's launch was like in NA? PAL?

We only have 3 weeks worth of data - 1 NA week, and 2 JP weeks. That's really not enough to base a lot off of. Is 60k in NA a disappointment? Yes. All we can do is hope that the NPD adjustments push it higher.

Nevertheless, Star Ocean 4 had the 2nd best NA launch, and the best JP launch of any 360 JRPG. PAL will be an interesting launch, but we'll have to see.

BTW, if your going to bash SO4 sales on 3 weeks worth of data, we might as well begin to bash failzone 2, as well. Since it was a massive dissapointment with it's budget costs.

Nice example to lead by. Can you blame people for trolling when they see Mods doing this. Shows off a great image to the vgchartz user. It also gives the respectable mods a bad name.

You know, before attacking me, you could of read the next 10 posts I made that described why I used this terminology. Furthermore, you could of read the post to understand why I said what I did. Are you merely upset that I replaced Kill with fail? If so, you should of read the rest of my post, which kind of explains it.

I'll re-iterate in case you didn't read my other posts: It was an obvious chide at those who used the word. Some people have said Killzone 2 failed with a 750k opening, despite the massive marketing and PR behind the game. Others argue that it's the same opening as Call of Duty: World at War. Who is correct? The real answer is 'neither'. We can't call Killzone much of anything at the moment. It has 1 week under it's belt in the West, and really hasn't given us a real indicator of where it is going to go. The pro-KZ side will say "It debuted near World at War! It will do great!" without the understanding that it could have horrible legs, ala Haze, or many other FPSes on the market. Likewise, someone wrongfully calling it 'failzone 2' or saying that 750k was bad is also wrong, because it could indeed have massive legs like World at War, and sell 3-4m. At that kind of number, it'd be hard to find many people say it was a failure, correct?

I apologize if you think I was trying to call KZ2 a failure, because I wasn't. Read the rest of my post. The whole issue is that everyone wants to argue 1 week worth of data, and it's not a good idea. Because we can play that game with KZ2 and come to a lot of conclusions (both pro and con). Did SO4's debut underperform in NA? Yes. Does that mean it's going to have bad legs and be a failure? Maybe. Maybe not. We can't really say. TLR has had pretty good legs, and great PAL data as well, as has Blue Dragon and Lost Odyssey (all of which had good SO-style marketing). Does that mean it'll have a 6x+ multiplier? Possibly, but with 1 week of NA data, we can't say. Let's wait for another 2 weeks. If SO4 drops below 10k a on Week 3, then it's pretty obvious that SO4 isn't going to track well.

Now, in that statement, how is that setting a wrong example?