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

[DonFerrari]

jason1637 said:

AngryLittleAlchemist said:

"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

"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."

So what you just said is that its impressive but not impressive as a whole but its impressive for the series and not for xbox but not that impressive for the series...

"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 did address why the sales could be on the decline. Personally i think it's judgment, new dev's, new cast. Not sure what Halo has do with 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."

Its not misleading because most people that open up a game are actually going to play it and even if someone plays it for a day or two every month they are still playing the game and are an active user so its important to count these players. The thing is that we dont have access to the exact statistics of how many people are playing now or how many people are playing every motnh all we can do is go of what we know about the MAU.

"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 went with the 5 million in a year because to be honest i dont see splatoon selling more than that during its first year. Splatoon on a 13.9 million install base only managed to sell 4.8million. I expect the switch this time next year to be around 13-14 million units so 5 million for splatoon 2 makes sense. I hope im wrong and it goes to sell something crazy like 10 million units because splatoon 1 is my favorite 8th gen game and splatoon 2 is a good step up from splatoon 1.

"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."

Sorry ill try not to put the arguments together. Looking at aligned FIFA sales FIFA 15 on XBO outsold FIFA 06 on 360, FIFA 16 on XBO outsold FIFA 07 on 360, FIFA 17 outsold FIFA 08 on the 360. Also BF1 did pretty good on XBO. VGC has it as the 4th best selling BF game so as XBO gets more mainline BF games that arent on 360 it should continue to get good sales.

"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. "

 was just looking at the sales objectively.. Added up Halo sales on xbox one and added up all the battlefield game sales on xbox one. BF1 sold so well because it came out on a bigger install base and it got $300 at launch while Halo 5 got a $500 LE bundle. I'm curious to know why you think Battlefield will have a higher digital attach rate than 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."

When refering to digital sales its used to refer to the digital attach rate of the whole game. Here are some links to read up on it.

MAU isn't an important metric for a MP game as the ones used before.

It's beter that a game had 4M people accessing it in a month but the peak is 200k and played time 100M hours or that 2M people accessed in the month having 500k peak and 200M played hours?

I would say the second one would be a healthier environment for the game. But perhaps the first would bring more money (neither metrics can show which earned more cash).

jason1637 said:

DonFerrari said:

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.

Well the sales are decent and you're are using mediocre as average then yea the sales are average.

Idk man Gears 1 and Gears UE had slow starts but they have the best sales in the series. 

The only meaning of mediocre is average. Anyone using it as bad is using it wrong. And to be fair I didn't saw anyone saying Halo or GoW sold bad, just that thet were subpar, a little disapoiting, meaning average, mediocre, less than the expected standard.