PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale is a MAJOR flop - we need to talk about it

[Jay520]

fillet said:

Jay520 said:

noname2200 said:

Jay520 said:


same could be said in the reverse. For successful new IPs, large openings are the exception, not the rule. It's more times than not a low opening (100-200k). One week of sales is really a poor indicator of long term sales for new IPs. (Speaking on PABR here. Lbpk is most likely a flop).

Hope springs eternal, I suppose. I'll close this discussion by pointing out that 1) you're constructing a narrative out of a fawlsity, and more importantly 2) the vast majority of new IPs have low openings...and poor lifetime sales.

Perhaps most successful new IPs did not have low openings (I don't feel like looking it up right now). But do you disagree that this has been the case for a large number of them? Specifically new IPs on the PS3 too.

As for your second point...you're warranting calling it a flop because of what the majority of past games have done. If that were valid, that warrant you to call it a flop even before its released. Since the vast majority of new IPs have low sales, and PABR is a new IP, therefore it will flop. But of course that doesn't make sense.

The same goes for what you're doing now, except to a lesser extreme. You're saying the vast majority of new IPs with low openings have poor lifetime sales, and PABR is a new IP with a low opening, therefore it will have poor lifetime sales, therefore it will flop. This is nearly as bad as the aforementioned example. Even if the vast majority of new IPs with low openings have poor lifetime sales, that doesn't mean its accurate to call a game a flop already. Think about this: If we called every new IP with a low opening a flop, we would have been wrong about a large portion of games. That portion would so large, that it I think it should sway the mentality on deciding when we can safely label a game as flopping.

...the false narrative continues.

You write very well but since the people reading your post are in full view of the facts, unlike in a newspaper where the journalist is handing out the facts, it means that we can read this for what it is.

Basically, you are creating a narrative according to values that suit your argument and not discussing the case at hand.

Your second paragraph is a benchmark of your false narrative, you've used a ridiculous hypothetical dreamland set of values that make no sense, (your own words!), then attempted to pass judgement on someone's argument using those ridiculous pillars of nonsensical nonsense.....Nonsense!

The trouble with the "new ip" card, is that we've heard it before and it never makes it acceptable and each case has to be judged on it's merrits. PSABR is a holiday title, it's received pretty good publicity, it's got the word "Playstation" in it, people were expecting a lot. It's not an exotic title, it should appeal to a large audience, it's not in a wierd genre.

So I don't think the "new ip" card is suitable at all in this case, and even if it were. Then the sales are still bad considering it's holiday season.

It's too early for paragraph 3 to make any sense at this point in the day, I'll need at least 5 cups of coffee and a calculator before that even begins to sink it.

You seem to disagree that a large portion of new IPs have low openings. Is that true? If so,then I guess I can only respond further with facts and data. Fair enough then. I shall respond in the future with data that supports my claim.

Also, I have just noticed with you're post, but I think I've been using a different definition of flop than you and noname. You seem to say its a flop because the sales are low given the circumstances and expectations. If that is the definition of a flop, then by all means, PABR is the biggest flop of the year. However, I have a different definition of flop. And if this game manages to sell over 1m, it instantly isn't a flop in my opinion, especially given the likely low budget. But I suppose we cannot agree on the best definition of "flop" though.