By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sales - Why does Sony fail at making another mega franchise?

jarrod on 07 September 2010
zgamer5 said:

kilzlone=realistic shooter

halo=arcade shooter

those are two diffrent things. also halo isnt on ps3, when killzone came out it was competiting with cod not with halo.

Eh... I don't think any console first FPS can really be considered "realistic".  If you want something more sim-y or realistic, you need a PC.  Halo, Killzone, COD, etc are all more "arcade" than not.



Around the Network
NYANKS on 07 September 2010
Michael-5 said:
NYANKS said:
Michael-5 said:

Okay fine then Animal Crossing is out for consoles, but as a franchise it's still mega.

Also I looked into it and God of War 1 only sold 3.73 million, so I retract it being a mega franchise.

So actually I change my opinion, AC is mega on handhelds, and games like Forza, God of War, Fable, LBP, Metroid, Kirby, and Star Fox are "super" franchises. I think 5 million is the cut off for mega, and he cut off for super should be 3 million, but with exceptions (like Metroid).

10 million should be a cut off for "freakish." However this is getting too technical as Super, Mega, or Freakish franchises are not technical terms.

Haha that's fine for me because I think most of this thread is pretty rubbish lol.  And why should Metroid be exempted? I know it's a big NAME franchise, but that doesn't change the dollar amounts.  It's not huge. For instance, Uncharted and Gears (which doesn't count, but for example) would qualify as super I think right? They're clearly not on the same level as Halo or GT5.  They are probably moderate system sellers. MGS5, now that was another story as it only sold 5 million, but it seemed to give a massive hardware boost. 

But yes, too technical. Ugh.

Lol, can we just say 10 million plus sales are Miyamoto 85% of the time.  Everyone has a mega game.  Let Ninty be happy for Shigeru's existence, and let Sony continue to make amazingly awesome games while lamenting his existence, until he retires? I'm a Sony fan and this is fine with me, I'm satsified with my games.  :)

Okay fine, Metroid isn't super, but it's an awesome franchise, and has the potential to go super with the semi-casual Other M.

And what do mean Gears is not on the same level as Halo or GT5? Gears games sell 6 million a peice. I guess it really depends on the cut-off, and if it's 10 million, then no Gears isn't the same as Halo. as for Uncharted 2, it sold about 3.5 million, so with my silly cut off, Halo and GT5 are freakish, Gears is mega, and Uncharted is super, but all are great.

As for MGS, MGS 1 and 2 sold about 5.5 million, and MGS4 came bundled with the last backward compatible PS3 model. Hence the hardware boost.

As for your last statment, I can't 100% agree. Before the Wii, almost no Nintendo console games broke 10 million. Not one Gamecube game, and only Super Mario 64 on the N64 did this (with Mario Kart just missing the cut-off).

I will admit that Miyamoto has made some of the most amazing games ever, and has continually redefined the market. From literally saving the video game market in 1985, to making the most established names in the buisness. I just wish I had a Wii (I said I would wait for a backward compatible successor and I stand by it, $200 is too much to pay for a console with about 10 titles I'm interested in, especially since those games are still near full price)

Of course there haven't been many, it's hard and even Miyamoto fails at doing it a lot.  However, isn't he responsible for most of them? Mario and Wii Series instantly come to mind, and any Mario spinoff would apply too. 

P.S. By the way, I still think that "Mad World" commerical really sparked interest in Gears intially, that was some good stuff. 



zgamer5 on 07 September 2010
jarrod said:
zgamer5 said:

kilzlone=realistic shooter

halo=arcade shooter

those are two diffrent things. also halo isnt on ps3, when killzone came out it was competiting with cod not with halo.

Eh... I don't think any console first FPS can really be considered "realistic".  If you want something more sim-y or realistic, you need a PC.  Halo, Killzone, COD, etc are all more "arcade" than not.

i was talking quality wise. you cant compare halo and killzone since killzone aims for a more realistic feeling, while halo is just plain arcady fun. the console fps which i consider realistic is killzone, because of the weight system(in real life you cant turn 360 degrees) also because if you concetrate your eyes on the screen for a while you will think that you are really in that game, that was one of the complaints my friends had with the game.



Being in 3rd place never felt so good

Michael-5 on 07 September 2010
zgamer5 said:
Michael-5 said:
zgamer5 said:
RolStoppable said:
zgamer5 said:

gears of war copied killswitch, so all those games which copied gears of war actually copied kill switch hence it did "redefine" the genra by your definition. and yes kill switch did have many of the elements of gears, blind fire, a cover system.....

halo copied games, hence those games are the ones which redifined the genra, again, copieng a agame that isnt original doesnt mean that that game redifined the genra.

many games copied god of war, but god of war didnt redifine the genra. 

again, you contradict yourself, if something is unique then it is redefining (well it has to do with how important those elements are and a weight system is), just because nothing copied killzone doesnt mean that it isnt redefining. again the sony franchises are fine, and they could be mega franchises. but they dont appeal to the mainstream gamers, alan wake has the elements to become a mega franchise, castlevania has them, mass effect has them, infamous has them, killzone has them, but theyr not mega franchises, that still doesnt dispute the fact that they have the elements to become a mega franchise, and that they are as good as mega franchises.

also again gears, halo didnt redfinine their respective genras, same with cod, but they are mega franchises, mainly because they appeal to the mainstream.

lol lbp sold more then 3.6 and its selling about 10k or more every week, it should surpass 4 million.

again quality doesnt equal to sales. mcdonalds isnt the best restaurant in the war, also wii sold the more, that doesnt mean that its the best console(tech wise). uncharted 2, demon souls, batman arkham asylum, won many game of the year awards last year(demon souls won one, i think) but did they sell the most? they didnt. 

you do know what diverse means? a little bit of that here and their, the ps3 user base is about 37 million, if lbp reached 5 million that would mean that 13.5 of its userbase like platformers. lets say the ps3's userbase has 5 million people who love platformers, are all of them going to love lbp? no cod, halo are mege franchises but many peopel dislike the games.

the sales potential of 2d platformers arent huge on the ps3, other then lbp i dont know a game that passed a million(maybe sonic unleashed). this isnt the wii, the wii is all platformers and wii... something with the exception of zelda and other big nintendo franchises. thats why mario with huge help from its brand power gets such great sales.

about the 2 million levels in lbp, many gamers like myself dont build, we play! also the 2 million are without counting the thousands of crappy levels. also lbp sales are 3.6. if it didnt have the create aspect it would have gotten less then 2 million sales.

 

if you want to continue this debate pm me, i dont want to keep this thread alive.

If people talk about the cover mechanics in games like Uncharted, Quantum Theory or Vanquish, what do they say? "It's similar to Gears of War." Nobody cares for kill.switch, probably because it wasn't well executed. Not well executed = not amazing. Which game defined the 3D platformer genre? Super Mario 64 or Jumpin' Flash!? The former did even though the latter title was released first. Super Mario 64 was amazing while Jumpin' Flash! was forgettable.

Those games that came first, but didn't end up influencing a plethora of other games made gamers say: "New idea, yes. But needs a lot more work to be fun." Hence why nobody (gamers, journalists, developers) says about Vanquish that it is like kill.switch, instead everyone refers to it as a GeoW on speed or something like that.

Something that is unique is not necessarily defining or redefining its genre. Fire Emblem features permanent death of defeated characters, but how many other SRPGs do that as well? Nearly none. That means perma-death is a unique element of FE, but not genre-defining. Just like Killzone's weight system is only unique, but not defining. There is no contradiction here from my side, only a lack of comprehension on your part.

Quality doesn't equal to sales? I agree and if you read through my posts in this thread you'll see that I never said otherwise. Your Wii example is quite silly, because I've never heard anyone saying that high sales equal best technology. I doubt you did, but really, it doesn't matter.

I very well know what diverse means. In theory, a diverse userbase would allow games of many different types to become huge hits, right? So shouldn't a 2D platformer, one of the most popular genres in gaming's existence, be able to hit five million even on the PS3? In reality, the PS3's userbase isn't that much more diverse than the 360's. The top of the million sellers lists look quite similar when it comes to the genres that sell really well. And by the way, Sonic Unleashed isn't even a 2D platformer.

Me being wrong about LBP's sales didn't hurt my argument. The game selling better than I assumed only strengthens my point that most gamers aren't interested in building their own levels, hence why LBP's new thing (the extensive level editor) had little impact on the market.

If you don't want to keep this thread alive, then refrain from posting in it.


yes but gears of war copied killswitch! hence by subsituation the titles which are copieng it are actually copieng killswitch. the only reason killswitch is forgetable is because it sold less then gears, ofcourse gears was executed better, but since its no 100% original its not redifining the genra. about mario and jumpin flash, i have no idea what jumpin flash is so i cant comment on that.

killswitch was fun, the games which copied halo were fun, but they werent popular. again sales doesnt equal to quality. gears copied other games, so killswitch did get copied, but people dont talk about it because 99% of gamers dont even know what that game is.

like i said in my previous postthe element must be on a certain scale to redifine the genra, and a weight system does that. why because it has to do directly with the fundementals of the a fps games: the controls, the psychics and the gameplay. you cant turn past a 180 degree turn, you feel the weight of the gun, and it changes the strategy in the game, that is redifining the realism of fps games.

i know its silly, i took the example from the top of my head. 

lbp should be able to hit 5 million units, if their were only a couple of genras, like i it selling 5 million would mean that the userbase 14% or more, platformer lovers, but their are always haters, hence its not going to sell like that. i know that the userbase is close to the one of the 360, but titles like lbp and heavy rain woudnt have performed as well if they were on the 360, a console which is mainly shooter oriented. by looking at titles such as mw2 about 25% of the ps3 userbase love shooters, if you look at gta4 you see that 18% of the ps3 userbase like sandbox games, if you look at lbp you see that 10% of ps3 owners like 2d platformers, if you look at gow3 you see that 8 % of its userbsae like hack n slash games, looking at gt5:P 14 % of its userbase like racing games. i can go on and on, but the point is this isnt the wii, its not platformer and wii ....... love. 

also with a 37 million userbase and lots of genras not every big hit will reach 5 million, lbp is reaching 4 million and thats great considering half of the ps3 userbase consider it a kid game.

again like i said before if it wasnt for the level builder of lbp the game woudnt have the sales it has now, the level editor has an impact on the market, look at modnation racers not even 500k sales and it has more then  a million user created content.

Everyone copied everyone. Video games are just serious alterations of Pong. I mean what game lacks an opponent now?

My quick opinion, some games are first to the market (Flash Jumpin), but being first doesn't garentee sales. It's being the best that counts, and being the best for the longest. Kill-Switch was a joke game, have you two even played it? Why do you think Halo sells 5 times better then Killzone? Is it marketed that much more? Is it that much better? No! It's an old franchise, which has garenteed quality in the past, and Killzone does not prove to me that it's better. Not only must Killzone be a better game then Halo to take away some of it's game sales, but it has to be A LOT better. I am taking a risk getting Killzone, they need to show me several good reasons to do so, and by me I mean a typical Halo fan.

I mean why do you think Zelda sells so well compared to other adventure games? Shadow of the Colossus was just as good, but Zelda has established itself long before. Most people just stick with what they love.

LBP is an amazing game, but Mario is far better known, and it has been around for a long long time. New franchises often have trouble re-defining the genre, and LBP has to do A LOT more then be "as good" as Super Mario Bros to compete for sales.

I mean, I am more interested in Donkey Kong Country Returns then LBP 2, why? Donkey Kong Country was probably the best platformer ever made to me, and definatly a great game to most SNES owners. LBP is new, and hasn't proved anything. Why risk it when I know DKCR will be a great game that I know I like? I've played it before and have no reason to switch. LBP 2 has to offer A LOT more to convince me anything, and by me I mean DKC fans from the SNES era, and casual gamers who see Donkey Kong and the Nintendo logo on the back.

Just the idea, that a game I really love is having a sequel, even if it's bad, makes me want to play it. Why else did I buy Lost Planet 2? I was considering buying a Wii if Golden Sun was released onto the console because I love Golden Sun that much. People stick with what they love.

kilzlone=realistic shooter

halo=arcade shooter

those are two diffrent things. also halo isnt on ps3, when killzone came out it was competiting with cod not with halo.

gears is better then killswitch, but since gears copied killswitch then it didnt redifine the genra.

for the rest,im not going to reply about it because it doesnt have anything to do with my post. and its common knowledge that donkey kong and mario are more popular then lbp, only a fanboy would doubt that.

Killzone is no more realistic then Halo, I mean your on some planet that doesn't exist, dropping off on floating platforms, and most of the tech is just fantasy baised. I mean look at those silly Hellgast Jetpacks. Killzone is no more realistic then Metroid Prime.

If you look at it linearly, since Gears copied Kill-Switch, it didn't define the genre, it redefined it, by making it a lot better, to the point where Gears of War is the best selling non 1st party IP this generation.

However if you look at it baised on quality, Halo, Call of Duty, and Goldeneye define the FPS genre, not Return to Castle Wolfenstein.

I think most people judge it on quality.

You two can argue for days, but I think most people judge genre defining on quality and logetvity. I mean when you think RPG, does Final Fantasy come up right away? Why not Ultima, Dungeons and Dragons, or Dragon Quest? when you think Racing game, do Mario Kart and GT pop into your head, or does Top Gear (The game, not the show) come in?

When you think video games, is Pong and Pac-Man an accurate way to define what you play? They defined gaming in the 80's, but in the current day and age they do not. Super Mario Galaxy, Halo, GT, and Call of Duty do among others.



What is with all the hate? Don't read GamrReview Articles. Contact me to ADD games to the Database
Vote for the March Most Wanted / February Results

Michael-5 on 07 September 2010
zgamer5 said:
jarrod said:
zgamer5 said:

kilzlone=realistic shooter

halo=arcade shooter

those are two diffrent things. also halo isnt on ps3, when killzone came out it was competiting with cod not with halo.

Eh... I don't think any console first FPS can really be considered "realistic".  If you want something more sim-y or realistic, you need a PC.  Halo, Killzone, COD, etc are all more "arcade" than not.

i was talking quality wise. you cant compare halo and killzone since killzone aims for a more realistic feeling, while halo is just plain arcady fun. the console fps which i consider realistic is killzone, because of the weight system(in real life you cant turn 360 degrees) also because if you concetrate your eyes on the screen for a while you will think that you are really in that game, that was one of the complaints my friends had with the game.

It doesn't make it a more realistic shooter, none of the plot is realistic, most of the tech isn't, and except for how your gun fires and how you walk around, it's not really a realistic game. Yes playing the game, you feel human, and it simulates how you would move well, but in Halo your a Spartan, your in a mechanically powered suit. Of course you can jump two stories, and turn 360 degrees, I mean the suit weighs over a ton, how would you be able to move that youself?

If anything, a future war is more likely to have suits like this, war would not be like it is today, so by that logic, Halo is more realistic.

:p lol



What is with all the hate? Don't read GamrReview Articles. Contact me to ADD games to the Database
Vote for the March Most Wanted / February Results

Around the Network
tolu619 on 07 September 2010

I'll comment after I read people's replies. Just kinda bookmarking this page now.



http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/7530/gohansupersaiyan239du.jpg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"> http://www.deviantart.com/download/109426596/Shippuden_Team_7_by_Tsubaki_chan.jpg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"> http://image.hotdog.hu/_data/members0/772/1047772/images/kepek_illusztraciok/Bleach%2520-%2520Ishida%2520Uryuu%25201.jpg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash">

3DS: tolu619

Wii U: FoyehBoys

Vita, PS3 and PS4: FoyehBoys

XBoxOne: Tolu619

Switch: Tolu619

Kugali - We publish comics from all across Africa and the diaspora, and we also push the boundaries of Augmented Reality storytelling. Check us out!

My thread for teaching VGC some Nigerian slangs

Kasz216 on 07 September 2010
Acevil said:

I would say the ps3 userbase is to blame as much as the marketing by sony.

Guess their two jobs didn't work out! :P

That and making blockbuster franchises is freaking hard.

I mean, look how many actually exist... and like half of em are like made by Miyamoto who is like some kind of savant at making huge games.



shinyuhadouken on 07 September 2010
HexenLord said:

The games you thought were 'failures' will probably end up selling another couple of million before gen is over. The Ps3 hasn't hit the 50% mark as far as total console sales go. Games like Uncharted 2, and Killzone 2 will eventually be bought by new console owners in the next few years especially since they will be 20-30 dollar 'greatest hits'.

 

They won't go on to sell 10 million, but 5 million would be a reasonable goal for them.

at $10 - $20 a piece. 

 

that's not very impressive.



Not a 360 fanboy, just a PS3 fanboy hater that likes putting them in their place ^.^

MARCUSDJACKSON on 07 September 2010

alot of things posted i disagree with, but i'll go on record as saying it's marketing and gamer. nearly every genre (none like Sonys competition) is on Sonys consoles (and is first party) which adds variety to the console. all Sonys new ip's you won't find on any other console.

it's a question better asked to Sony gamers as a hole

 



 Zarx's unofficial The Witcher 3    

Official Playstation Vita Thread!

write reveiws, articles, share thoughts, and expand on discussion like never before on gamewise.co/brainwaves

zgamer5 on 07 September 2010
Michael-5 said:
zgamer5 said:
jarrod said:
zgamer5 said:

kilzlone=realistic shooter

halo=arcade shooter

those are two diffrent things. also halo isnt on ps3, when killzone came out it was competiting with cod not with halo.

Eh... I don't think any console first FPS can really be considered "realistic".  If you want something more sim-y or realistic, you need a PC.  Halo, Killzone, COD, etc are all more "arcade" than not.

i was talking quality wise. you cant compare halo and killzone since killzone aims for a more realistic feeling, while halo is just plain arcady fun. the console fps which i consider realistic is killzone, because of the weight system(in real life you cant turn 360 degrees) also because if you concetrate your eyes on the screen for a while you will think that you are really in that game, that was one of the complaints my friends had with the game.

It doesn't make it a more realistic shooter, none of the plot is realistic, most of the tech isn't, and except for how your gun fires and how you walk around, it's not really a realistic game. Yes playing the game, you feel human, and it simulates how you would move well, but in Halo your a Spartan, your in a mechanically powered suit. Of course you can jump two stories, and turn 360 degrees, I mean the suit weighs over a ton, how would you be able to move that youself?

If anything, a future war is more likely to have suits like this, war would not be like it is today, so by that logic, Halo is more realistic.

:p lol



you tried, but you failed./facepalm



Being in 3rd place never felt so good