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

NotStan on 06 February 2011

If these numbers are relatively close to the actual numbers, then I am disappointed that such a great port is poorly received, chances are a large segment of the PS3 base are waiting for the game to drop in price or until the word of mouth begins to spread. I think 500k possible and even 1M is not out of this realm of possibility, what's interesting is how ME3 will perform.



Disconnect and self destruct, one bullet a time.

Around the Network
heruamon on 06 February 2011
Darth Tigris said:
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.

 

I guess its personal preference...I am willing to wait 6-7 months from the release of the main game for a 10-15 hours DLC, rather than getting a 2 hour DLC 2-3 months after launch.  GTA's problem was that they wait far too long, but they definitely were a great model for DLC, and they sold really well.  I think from a business standpoint, and from a gaming standpoint, releasing "meaty" dlc ever 6-7 months will keep the game alive, heading into the sequel.



"...You can't kill ideas with a sword, and you can't sink belief structures with a broadside. You defeat them by making them change..."

- From By Schism Rent Asunder

S.T.A.G.E. on 06 February 2011

Mass Effect 2 has plenty of DLC. The next DLC will definitely have to be worth the money after making PS3 owners pay $60 out of the gate.



Darc Requiem on 06 February 2011

The Next Story line DLC is the last before ME3, so it's going to be Liar of the Shadow Broker sized if not bigger. I have 9 Shepards waiting on that DLC.



Carl on 06 February 2011
Darth Tigris said:

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.

I come to the site and the community because I like a part of it. I like the sales numbers too, for the most part.

When there is something obviously wrong with the numbers, I'll bring it up. There is nothing in the site rules that says I can't do it. I've mentioned it to Brett. What is your problem with me wanting the numbers here to be more accurate?

Edit:
Just to expand on this further. Ask jarrod. I will argue a LOT to defend this sites numbers. But when the developer/publishers own numbers disagree with VGChartz numbers. Then we know for a fact that the numbers need changing.



                            

Around the Network
oldschoolfool on 06 February 2011

It's a port to a 1yr game and it's full price,that stuff does'nt bother me personally and the only reason I did'nt get it was I have to many other games I'm playing and killzone 2 comes out this month. I'll get it,but it's going to have to wait for abit.



Darth Tigris 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 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.

When I look at the huge success of the PS and PS2, though, I don't see SCE IP's being the reason.  I think Resident Evil, FF, Tekken and MGS for the PS.  I think GTA, MGS and FF for the PS2.  SCE had great games for sure (some even selling really good numbers), but 3rd party exclusives pretty much made the PS and PS2 as far as sales.  MS approached this gen that same way, but it was 3rd parties that came to see that its better business FOR THEM to go multi or maybe timed.

SCE has maybe more exclusive IP's this gen than ever before, but ironically that hasn't propelled them to the top either.

Nintendo?  Well they're Nintendo.  They have a list of legacy IP's that SCE and MGS won't be able to compete with ... maybe ever.

With this gen, the rules are being rewritten and MGS and SCE will have to look at this and see where things are trending and try to steer the ship.  Not saying I'm a huge fan of MGS's approach, but I can say that I'm sure not hurting for games to play on my 360.



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

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.

I come to the site and the community because I like a part of it. I like the sales numbers too, for the most part.

When there is something obviously wrong with the numbers, I'll bring it up. There is nothing in the site rules that says I can't do it. I've mentioned it to Brett. What is your problem with me wanting the numbers here to be more accurate?

Edit:
Just to expand on this further. Ask jarrod. I will argue a LOT to defend this sites numbers. But when the developer/publishers own numbers disagree with VGChartz numbers. Then we know for a fact that the numbers need changing.

Nothing.  Again, I didn't mean for that question to be accusatory or inflammatory.  It was genuine.  



NotStan on 06 February 2011
Darth Tigris said:
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 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.

When I look at the huge success of the PS and PS2, though, I don't see SCE IP's being the reason.  I think Resident Evil, FF, Tekken and MGS for the PS.  I think GTA, MGS and FF for the PS2.  SCE had great games for sure (some even selling really good numbers), but 3rd party exclusives pretty much made the PS and PS2 as far as sales.  MS approached this gen that same way, but it was 3rd parties that came to see that its better business FOR THEM to go multi or maybe timed.

SCE has maybe more exclusive IP's this gen than ever before, but ironically that hasn't propelled them to the top either.

Nintendo?  Well they're Nintendo.  They have a list of legacy IP's that SCE and MGS won't be able to compete with ... maybe ever.

With this gen, the rules are being rewritten and MGS and SCE will have to look at this and see where things are trending and try to steer the ship.  Not saying I'm a huge fan of MGS's approach, but I can say that I'm sure not hurting for games to play on my 360.

True, I think that SCE has wayyyy many more IPs to dig upon than the 360, but Nintendo trumps all



Disconnect and self destruct, one bullet a time.

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

When I look at the huge success of the PS and PS2, though, I don't see SCE IP's being the reason.  I think Resident Evil, FF, Tekken and MGS for the PS.  I think GTA, MGS and FF for the PS2.  SCE had great games for sure (some even selling really good numbers), but 3rd party exclusives pretty much made the PS and PS2 as far as sales.  MS approached this gen that same way, but it was 3rd parties that came to see that its better business FOR THEM to go multi or maybe timed.

SCE has maybe more exclusive IP's this gen than ever before, but ironically that hasn't propelled them to the top either.

Nintendo?  Well they're Nintendo.  They have a list of legacy IP's that SCE and MGS won't be able to compete with ... maybe ever.

With this gen, the rules are being rewritten and MGS and SCE will have to look at this and see where things are trending and try to steer the ship.  Not saying I'm a huge fan of MGS's approach, but I can say that I'm sure not hurting for games to play on my 360.


Sony's first party are enjoying upward spikes in sales every year. As the names become more known the fanbases are growing. Sony has great relationships with third parties, beyond even that of Microsoft. Microsoft exposed them and capitalized on that this gen, but Sony exploited Microsofts weak spot now.