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

Forums - Sales - Looks like GT5's sales performance is making a lot of haters silent..

stopstopp on 10 January 2011
jarrod said:
stopstopp said:
jarrod said:
stopstopp said:
jarrod said:
stopstopp said:

True it does, but I was just mearly making a point. You can't say GT PSP bombed if you don't say Mario Kart DS bombed.

Although considering GT5 sales are still in it's infancy, no, I don't consider it a bomb.

Uh, yes you can.  Mario Kart DS far outsold every previous Mario Kart, it was an unheralded success by series standards.  GT PSP far undersold every previous GT, it was an unheralded failure by series standards.  Your point literally has zero merit.

I wouldn't consider GT5 a bomb either fwiw.

Considering DS seems to be on track on outselling every nintendo home console that isn't wii combined, no wonder it sold more.

Considering PSP looks like it could become the worst selling Sony console (if the successor comes out this year) plus the fact that it is a handheld (which gives it absolutely no chance unless it is in DS's position, which it would half to have over 250 million consoles to do so) no wonder it sold less.

Still doesn't change that Mario Kart DS is a bomb compared to console versions, as is the same for GT PSP.


lol, no it's not at all "the same" by any stretch... chiefly because Mario Kart DS far outsold every previous console version of the series.  This isn't rocket science here, I'm not sure why you can't seem to grasp "by series standards" and "ratio arguments inherently favor smaller bases"? 

And your by series standards argument favor bigger bases. Nintendos total and utter failure with N64 and Gamecube just makes Mario Kart DS look good. Mario Kart DS was a success by series standards but a complete and total failure by ratio. Infact Mario Kart DS couldn't even sell more than the SNES N64 and GC versions combined despite having 40 million more consoles than their consoles combined.

It seems we are at a stalemate, our arguments use two different schools of thought and we aren't changing our opinions. I'm just leaving it at that.

Uh, Mario Kart DS also sold favorably to the SNES and GBA versions.  It's not simply a total userbase thing here, it did exceedingly well by any standard.

And we're not at a "stalemate", your reaching argument to somehow use ratio to make Mario Kart DS look disappointing doesn't even work... it has a better sellthrough ratio than literally every single game ever released on PS2... if you're trying to somehow twist reality so you can argue MKDS is a bomb, then you also consider every single game ever released on PS2 to be a bomb as well?  Gee, no wonder you're so eager to leave it at that. lol.

I don't care about PS2. Mario Kart DS is still a bomb. It failed to meet other ones many times. DS is 145 million, over 40 million than the other home consoles not wii that had mario kart but it can't outsell them combined. It failed to reach mario kart wii even though DS sold like 60 million more than wii. Your argument uses the fact that nintendo did completely awful, their last two consoles sold so bad it's not funny. Now we finally have a successful console and now it is great, which it obviously isn't. It will always fail to meet Mario Kart Wii in just sales, doesn't matter how big DS gets. Compared to consoles, it is the singlehandly worst selling Mario Kart. Mario Kart SNES sold to around 24% of all owners while DS is at 14.7% of all owners, the worst of all the home consoles. mario Kart DS is the second worse Mario Kart, and will continue to be forever.



Around the Network
Hynad on 10 January 2011
Kasz216 said:
Hynad said:
Kasz216 said:
Hynad said:
Kasz216 said:
slowmo said:
Kasz216 said:
slowmo said:
Kasz216 said:
Dallinor said:
Kasz216 said:
Mordred11 said:

LOL @ people still comparing MK with GT5,the two games have nothing to do with eachother.

It's like comparing Avatar and Inception

 You know, you really set yourself up for a HUGE troll comment there.

Comaping a good movie (Inception) with a bad movie (avatar) that people only like because of it's amazing graphics and effects.

I can understand that is your opinion of the film but who made you the judge of what people like a movie for?

I personally found some of the core ideas in the film interesting, the action was great, the pacing was good and the culture and life of the planet Pandora really allowed for a total suspension of disbelief and a strong engagement with the idea the film presented.

I think avatar was a decent movie, Inception was better, but I liked avatar for more than just it's visual splendor. 

The core ideas of the film were directly lifted from other films who executed them MUCH better.

Furthermore, that's less my opinion, but the general opinion of people as  a whole from what i've seen.

The vast majority of people who like it, like it for the effects.  If you liked it for the Dances with Wolves/Ferngully eque message and various bad but effective ways to get people invested like the "so evil i'm not a real person" character... good for you, but that's not even the majority reason for people who liked the movie.

What about all those people who watched Inception and went wtf and promptly turned off and consider it crap?  I believe Avatar appealed to far more people than Inception did and the general public as a whole would rate Avatar the better movie imo.

For the record I think Inception is a signficantly better film but I know a lot of people that would disagree with me.

I'm not sure how you'd prove that.  At the moment Inception is ahead of Avatar in the User Reviews at Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic which would seem to suggest the opposite.

Or rather, that Inception is seen as more favorable by those who have seen it then Avatar is by those who have seen it.


No proof its all anecdotal.  All I would say is user reviews online will quite blatantly be hopelessly skewed to a certain demographic.  I'm not here to prove you wrong anyway, I'm just saying there is a large number of people out there who would rate Avatar better than Inception,

You can find large groups of people who will do anything.

Heck, you could find a large number of people who think Bush junior was a better president then Clinton and a large groups of people who think Twighlight is better then Shakespheare. 

I would say the only think you could get people to agree on is that not getting kicked in the balls is better then getting in the balls... but then i'm reminded of sadomasichists. 

Avatar obviously appealed to a lot more people than Inception.  Just take a quick look at the amount of maney it made at the box office and how it keeps making a crapload of it.  Inception doesn't even come close to it. 

"Bla bla bla, but it's all about the graphickzzz!"

So? 

 

It still appealed to people much more than Inception.


No that proves a lot more people SAW Avatar.

Considering Avatar was and is billed as an expierence that everyone should see interested or not.

Errr, you do know that you must pay to go to the movies, right?  And that before you pay for the movie, it must appeal to you, right?  *rolleyes

 

Avatar appealed to much more people.

Your going around in circles here.  Peole paid money to see it, very specifically because of the high end graphics and the 3d expierence being hyped up.

Going in circle?  You're arguing about the subjective merits of each movies while saying one appealed more than the other.  The facts point to Avatar appealing to more people than Inception. 

No matter the reason (graphics, story, or whatever), I say it did appeal more than Inception did, and the numbers support me.  Is that too hard to understand or something? 



Kenology on 10 January 2011

I can't believe stopstop is in here calling Mario Kart DS a bomb.  And then wants to completely disregard the PS2 example that jarrod brought up.  Unbelievable!  lmao



Kasz216 on 10 January 2011
Hynad said:
Kasz216 said:
Hynad said:
Kasz216 said:
Hynad said:
Kasz216 said:
slowmo said:
Kasz216 said:
slowmo said:
Kasz216 said:
Dallinor said:
Kasz216 said:
Mordred11 said:

LOL @ people still comparing MK with GT5,the two games have nothing to do with eachother.

It's like comparing Avatar and Inception

 You know, you really set yourself up for a HUGE troll comment there.

Comaping a good movie (Inception) with a bad movie (avatar) that people only like because of it's amazing graphics and effects.

I can understand that is your opinion of the film but who made you the judge of what people like a movie for?

I personally found some of the core ideas in the film interesting, the action was great, the pacing was good and the culture and life of the planet Pandora really allowed for a total suspension of disbelief and a strong engagement with the idea the film presented.

I think avatar was a decent movie, Inception was better, but I liked avatar for more than just it's visual splendor. 

The core ideas of the film were directly lifted from other films who executed them MUCH better.

Furthermore, that's less my opinion, but the general opinion of people as  a whole from what i've seen.

The vast majority of people who like it, like it for the effects.  If you liked it for the Dances with Wolves/Ferngully eque message and various bad but effective ways to get people invested like the "so evil i'm not a real person" character... good for you, but that's not even the majority reason for people who liked the movie.

What about all those people who watched Inception and went wtf and promptly turned off and consider it crap?  I believe Avatar appealed to far more people than Inception did and the general public as a whole would rate Avatar the better movie imo.

For the record I think Inception is a signficantly better film but I know a lot of people that would disagree with me.

I'm not sure how you'd prove that.  At the moment Inception is ahead of Avatar in the User Reviews at Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic which would seem to suggest the opposite.

Or rather, that Inception is seen as more favorable by those who have seen it then Avatar is by those who have seen it.


No proof its all anecdotal.  All I would say is user reviews online will quite blatantly be hopelessly skewed to a certain demographic.  I'm not here to prove you wrong anyway, I'm just saying there is a large number of people out there who would rate Avatar better than Inception,

You can find large groups of people who will do anything.

Heck, you could find a large number of people who think Bush junior was a better president then Clinton and a large groups of people who think Twighlight is better then Shakespheare. 

I would say the only think you could get people to agree on is that not getting kicked in the balls is better then getting in the balls... but then i'm reminded of sadomasichists. 

Avatar obviously appealed to a lot more people than Inception.  Just take a quick look at the amount of maney it made at the box office and how it keeps making a crapload of it.  Inception doesn't even come close to it. 

"Bla bla bla, but it's all about the graphickzzz!"

So? 

 

It still appealed to people much more than Inception.


No that proves a lot more people SAW Avatar.

Considering Avatar was and is billed as an expierence that everyone should see interested or not.

Errr, you do know that you must pay to go to the movies, right?  And that before you pay for the movie, it must appeal to you, right?  *rolleyes

 

Avatar appealed to much more people.

Your going around in circles here.  Peole paid money to see it, very specifically because of the high end graphics and the 3d expierence being hyped up.

Going in circle?  You're arguing about the reasons why the movie appealed or not to people.

No matter the reason (graphics, story, or whatever), I say it did appeal more than Inception did, and the numbers support me.  Is that too hard to understand or something? 

No, it's just completely insubstantial of point.



Hynad on 10 January 2011
Kasz216 said:
Hynad said:
Kasz216 said:
Hynad said:
Kasz216 said:
Hynad said:
Kasz216 said:
slowmo said:
Kasz216 said:
slowmo said:
Kasz216 said:
Dallinor said:
Kasz216 said:
Mordred11 said:

LOL @ people still comparing MK with GT5,the two games have nothing to do with eachother.

It's like comparing Avatar and Inception

 You know, you really set yourself up for a HUGE troll comment there.

Comaping a good movie (Inception) with a bad movie (avatar) that people only like because of it's amazing graphics and effects.

I can understand that is your opinion of the film but who made you the judge of what people like a movie for?

I personally found some of the core ideas in the film interesting, the action was great, the pacing was good and the culture and life of the planet Pandora really allowed for a total suspension of disbelief and a strong engagement with the idea the film presented.

I think avatar was a decent movie, Inception was better, but I liked avatar for more than just it's visual splendor. 

The core ideas of the film were directly lifted from other films who executed them MUCH better.

Furthermore, that's less my opinion, but the general opinion of people as  a whole from what i've seen.

The vast majority of people who like it, like it for the effects.  If you liked it for the Dances with Wolves/Ferngully eque message and various bad but effective ways to get people invested like the "so evil i'm not a real person" character... good for you, but that's not even the majority reason for people who liked the movie.

What about all those people who watched Inception and went wtf and promptly turned off and consider it crap?  I believe Avatar appealed to far more people than Inception did and the general public as a whole would rate Avatar the better movie imo.

For the record I think Inception is a signficantly better film but I know a lot of people that would disagree with me.

I'm not sure how you'd prove that.  At the moment Inception is ahead of Avatar in the User Reviews at Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic which would seem to suggest the opposite.

Or rather, that Inception is seen as more favorable by those who have seen it then Avatar is by those who have seen it.


No proof its all anecdotal.  All I would say is user reviews online will quite blatantly be hopelessly skewed to a certain demographic.  I'm not here to prove you wrong anyway, I'm just saying there is a large number of people out there who would rate Avatar better than Inception,

You can find large groups of people who will do anything.

Heck, you could find a large number of people who think Bush junior was a better president then Clinton and a large groups of people who think Twighlight is better then Shakespheare. 

I would say the only think you could get people to agree on is that not getting kicked in the balls is better then getting in the balls... but then i'm reminded of sadomasichists. 

Avatar obviously appealed to a lot more people than Inception.  Just take a quick look at the amount of maney it made at the box office and how it keeps making a crapload of it.  Inception doesn't even come close to it. 

"Bla bla bla, but it's all about the graphickzzz!"

So? 

 

It still appealed to people much more than Inception.


No that proves a lot more people SAW Avatar.

Considering Avatar was and is billed as an expierence that everyone should see interested or not.

Errr, you do know that you must pay to go to the movies, right?  And that before you pay for the movie, it must appeal to you, right?  *rolleyes

 

Avatar appealed to much more people.

Your going around in circles here.  Peole paid money to see it, very specifically because of the high end graphics and the 3d expierence being hyped up.

Going in circle?  You're arguing about the reasons why the movie appealed or not to people.

No matter the reason (graphics, story, or whatever), I say it did appeal more than Inception did, and the numbers support me.  Is that too hard to understand or something? 

No, it's just completely insubstantial of point.

What a cop-out.



Around the Network
stopstopp on 10 January 2011
Kenology said:

I can't believe stopstop is in here calling Mario Kart DS a bomb.  And then wants to completely disregard the PS2 example that jarrod brought up.  Unbelievable!  lmao


Considering the whole argument is how Mario Kart DS is such a great competitor against its other versions, the PS2 example doesn't mean anythng. And yes, compared to others, Mario Kart is a total bomb.



pizzahut451 on 10 January 2011
jarrod said:
Mordred11 said:

LOL @ people still comparing MK with GT5,the two games have nothing to do with eachother.

It's like comparing Avatar and Inception.


They're in the same genre (though not subgenre), that's the point for comparison.  

I think there's a bit of revisionism going on though, Mario Kart tends to get retroactively positioned as the heavy weight juggernaut but that's not at all the case.  Before this generation, no Mario Kart had sold over 10m, while every GT had.  This gen we have two Mario Karts over 20m, and two GTs that likely won't hit 10m... it's really been a massive seachange this gen, and more reflective of the overall consumer shift towards Nintendo and away from PlayStation.

Except that they are not same at all. Gran Turismo is a realistic driving simulator and Mario Kart is an arcade cartoon racer. Just because you drive cars in both games doesnt mean its a asame genre. Its like calling Mass Effect and Bioshock same genre



Kenology on 10 January 2011
stopstopp said:
Kenology said:

I can't believe stopstop is in here calling Mario Kart DS a bomb.  And then wants to completely disregard the PS2 example that jarrod brought up.  Unbelievable!  lmao


Considering the whole argument is how Mario Kart DS is such a great competitor against its other versions, the PS2 example doesn't mean anythng. And yes, compared to others, Mario Kart is a total bomb.

If you want to reach that far and make such a silly argument just to make a blockbuster a flop - more power to you.

Just remember, if this is how you difine a game as being a success or not, this argument could come back to bite you later on.



Mordred11 on 10 January 2011
Kasz216 said:

No, it's just completely insubstantial of point.

Avatar wouldn't have made so much,if the director wasn't Cameron.

More people saw Titanic than Avatar,though Avatar made more money.

A BIG part of that people went to see Avatar just because it was ''Cameron's new baby''.

So,like you stated earlier and this thread,people didn't go to see it just for the 3D experience,but rather expected a new masterpiece from Mr. James Cameron.

The same could be said about Inception though.But Avatar gained much more from Titanic than Inception did from The Dark Knight.

Same how MK gained much more sales from Mario than GT5 did from the previous titles.There's just a big difference between the audiences.



SleepWaking on 10 January 2011
Mordred11 said:
Kasz216 said:

No, it's just completely insubstantial of point.

Avatar wouldn't have made so much,if the director wasn't Cameron.

More people saw Titanic than Avatar,though Avatar made more money.

A BIG part of that people went to see Avatar just because it was ''Cameron's new baby''.

So,like you stated earlier and this thread,people didn't go to see it just for the 3D experience,but rather expected a new masterpiece from Mr. James Cameron.

I haven't read anything else from this conversation, but I know I severely disagree with the point being made here. I would say (alot) more people went to a theatre showing because they wanted to experience 3D with this new revolutionary technique. Every time I was in a discussion with somebody about it or read forums about the movie, most they talked about was the 3D and how it would look like or after you saw it what you thought of it. Cameron was mentioned and the story was mentioned as well but neither one of them was the main attraction of this movie.