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

Forums - Sony - So, Let's Talk PS3 Mass Effect 2 Sales

Carl on 05 February 2011
oniyide said:

@carl2291  holy crap!!! thats not that great all things considered. Its sad that it sold that little its really a good game and should have more sales. I wonder why the ME2 sales are so inflated???

I'm not sure why. I'm still not sure why it hasn't been adjusted neither. I brought it up with Brett when the data was revealed but nothing was done. Seems strange.

Edit:

And if you cross check it with the other games, FIFA, Dante's Inferno, etc. The data matches. It's just ME2 that's off by so much.



                            

Around the Network
MonstaMack on 05 February 2011

... Let's not talk about it. It depresses me :(



It's just that simple.

oniyide on 05 February 2011

@Carl2291  not to be a conspiracy theorist, but could their be a in the closet ME fanboy on staff that wants to make his/her favorite series look good??? just asking



Darth Tigris on 05 February 2011
heruamon said:
themanwithnoname said:
heruamon said:
Darth Tigris said:
Reasonable said:

I know, but what it means is that MS is often exposed to the risk of loss of exclusives, particularly now when globally, most popular titles sell roughly the same on each console.  For most developers this means multi is the safest route to go.  I don't mean MS has to own the studios outright, but it should engage in deals where it owns the IP fully and the developer is just developing it.  That way they keep control.

The whole 'sorta exclusive' is just a weak position to be in IMHO.

Your average 360 owner, though, doesn't really care about if a game is exclusive or not.  They just want to know if they can play it on the 360.

As for the ip/dev situation you mentioned, I'd really be suprised if the really talented independent studios out there would agree to a work-for-hire situation like that.  Most really want to retain the rights more than anything.

 

 

 

My major gripe is that the game only got ONE decent DLC (Lair of the Shadow Broker), when it had been promised that we would receive major content.  I wasted my credits downloading all those worthless ones that could have been packaged in one decent DLC for a lot cheaper price.  I'm pretty disgusted with Bioware and EA over the piss poor DLCs the game received.  I just want ME3 to conclude the series, and I'm not getting ANY MORE DLC after that game is over.

Overlord's good too. I'd like a full blown expansion pack for once, instead of these small add-ons.

 

Yeah...overlord wasn't that bad...but they should have bundled ALL of them into one $19.99 expansion ala GT4 and maybe do 3 of those...one in the early fall...one in early spring, and one in late Fall, to lead into ME3.  Mass Effect gamers have invested a lot of time into the universe, and I just felt we got shafted by Bioware and EA...which is fine, since I'll probably Gamefly ME3 when it's launch, to show them my appreciation.

I disagree with that.  I think they were following other examples that were more regular (such as Fallout 3).  Who wants to wait almost a year for a big expansion when you can get smaller ones trickled throughout the year?  

Well some, but not all.  Besides, you could always wait and get them all later you know?  Cheaper too, as back in December they were all only 200 points a piece for a day.



Carl on 05 February 2011
oniyide said:

@Carl2291  not to be a conspiracy theorist, but could their be a in the closet ME fanboy on staff that wants to make his/her favorite series look good??? just asking

I seriously doubt that Brett would want to harm the confidence people has in his numbers just because he likes a game.



                            

Around the Network
themanwithnoname on 06 February 2011
S.T.A.G.E. said:
heruamon said:
Darth Tigris said:
Reasonable said:

I know, but what it means is that MS is often exposed to the risk of loss of exclusives, particularly now when globally, most popular titles sell roughly the same on each console.  For most developers this means multi is the safest route to go.  I don't mean MS has to own the studios outright, but it should engage in deals where it owns the IP fully and the developer is just developing it.  That way they keep control.

The whole 'sorta exclusive' is just a weak position to be in IMHO.

Your average 360 owner, though, doesn't really care about if a game is exclusive or not.  They just want to know if they can play it on the 360.

As for the ip/dev situation you mentioned, I'd really be suprised if the really talented independent studios out there would agree to a work-for-hire situation like that.  Most really want to retain the rights more than anything.

My major gripe is that the game only got ONE decent DLC (Lair of the Shadow Broker), when it had been promised that we would receive major content.  I wasted my credits downloading all those worthless ones that could have been packaged in one decent DLC for a lot cheaper price.  I'm pretty disgusted with Bioware and EA over the piss poor DLCs the game received.  I just want ME3 to conclude the series, and I'm not getting ANY MORE DLC after that game is over.

 


Theres one more major bit of content coming and then Bioware is letting go of Mass Effect 2 support for good.


Let's just hope this turns out better than the last piece of DLC for Mass Effect, which they promised for I don't know how long, then stealth released it, and it was absolutely atrocious.



themanwithnoname's law: As an America's sales or NPD thread grows longer, the probabilty of the comment "America = World" [sarcasticly] being made approaches 1.

Darth Tigris on 06 February 2011
Carl2291 said:
oniyide said:

@Carl2291  not to be a conspiracy theorist, but could their be a in the closet ME fanboy on staff that wants to make his/her favorite series look good??? just asking

I seriously doubt that Brett would want to harm the confidence people has in his numbers just because he likes a game.

Carl, if you're so disenchanted with the numbers that are provided here, then why come to the site and participate in the community when they are so centered around these very numbers?  Please don't read the wrong tone into that question, as it's genuine.



Reasonable on 06 February 2011
Darth Tigris said:
Reasonable said:

I know, but what it means is that MS is often exposed to the risk of loss of exclusives, particularly now when globally, most popular titles sell roughly the same on each console.  For most developers this means multi is the safest route to go.  I don't mean MS has to own the studios outright, but it should engage in deals where it owns the IP fully and the developer is just developing it.  That way they keep control.

The whole 'sorta exclusive' is just a weak position to be in IMHO.

Your average 360 owner, though, doesn't really care about if a game is exclusive or not.  They just want to know if they can play it on the 360.

As for the ip/dev situation you mentioned, I'd really be suprised if the really talented independent studios out there would agree to a work-for-hire situation like that.  Most really want to retain the rights more than anything.

I particularly agree on the bolded, and that's why I'd like to see MS invest directly more as per my posts.  That's my point really.  MS only actually controls a fairly small set of IPs.  I believe to truly dominate - a'la PS1 / PS2 or Wii for most of this gen - you need more control and more differential exclusives than that.  MS has done very well leveraging a few key IP, but I just don't see them ever achieving what the others have done without more IPs that they fully control that have high demand.



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

darthdevidem01 on 06 February 2011
oniyide said:

@Carl2291  not to be a conspiracy theorist, but could their be a in the closet ME fanboy on staff that wants to make his/her favorite series look good??? just asking

No but they do take bribes, I bribed them to get MGS4 to 5 Million quickly and also to keep Halo Reach sales below Halo 3 in the same timeframe.



All hail the KING, Andrespetmonkey

S.T.A.G.E. on 06 February 2011
Reasonable said:
Darth Tigris said:
Reasonable said:

I know, but what it means is that MS is often exposed to the risk of loss of exclusives, particularly now when globally, most popular titles sell roughly the same on each console.  For most developers this means multi is the safest route to go.  I don't mean MS has to own the studios outright, but it should engage in deals where it owns the IP fully and the developer is just developing it.  That way they keep control.

The whole 'sorta exclusive' is just a weak position to be in IMHO.

Your average 360 owner, though, doesn't really care about if a game is exclusive or not.  They just want to know if they can play it on the 360.

As for the ip/dev situation you mentioned, I'd really be suprised if the really talented independent studios out there would agree to a work-for-hire situation like that.  Most really want to retain the rights more than anything.

I particularly agree on the bolded, and that's why I'd like to see MS invest directly more as per my posts.  That's my point really.  MS only actually controls a fairly small sub-set of IPs.  I believe to truly dominate - a'la PS1 / PS2 or Wii for most of this gen - you need more control and more differential than that.  MS has done very well leveraging a few key IP, but I just don't see them ever achieving what the others have done without more IPs that they fully control that have high demand.


Well said. This is another reason I refuse to buy another 360. Until they shape up, it's a no go.