Michael-5 said:
Superman4 said:
Michael-5 said:
Killzone 3 is selling well for a PS3 exclusive. If you're asking why Killzone 3 sales aren't as strong as Halo, Call of Duty, or Gears of War it's because it doesn't have as strong of a multiplayer component. Multiplayer is fun, but there is nothing really bringing you back into the game. Resident Evil 5 sold well despite having poor multiplayer because of the strong label Resident Evil 4 laid. Also Killzone doesn't have as epic of a story arc as other Sci-Fi shooters like Halo, Gears of War, or Resident Evil. The events in Killzone 3 are much more loosly tied to the events in other Killzones compared to the other mentioned sci fi shooters. So..
1. Not as addicitve multiplayer as compeditors
2. Not the king of multiplayer games, so it's forgotten quickly since everyone else is playing Call of Duty.
3. Not so massive story arc.
|
I would disagree with that. Multiplayer is very good in KZ3. The reason it doesn't sell as well as Halo or Gears is because it the hype machine isn't their for it. Xbox owners are quick to pick up any crap game which is why most games sell more on the 360 vs. the PS3. PS3 fans are generally more select in their purchases. For me, I don't like any of the Halo games, none of the Gears games and none of the Call of Duty games.Resident Evil was also a horrible game. To me the controls were crap and the overall gameplay wasn't fun. Same goes for Socom series on PS3 Unreal Tournament etc. Really the only good FPS on the PS3 are KZ and Resistance. Warhawk and Uncharted take the crown for 3rd person. I still play KZ2, Warhawk, KZ3 and Uncharted 2 online.
|
From my experience with Killzone 2, Resistance, and Lost Planet multiplayer is that these games appeal to a smaller audience, and gameplay isn't as balanced, or applicable as Call of Duty or Halo. I mean in Lost Planet for example, get in a VS and you're on a kill streak, and the concept of using a grapple to climb is unusual.
When I say less addictive multiplayer, I'm probably using a poor choice of vocabulary. With my first point, I mean to say that the multiplayer keeps less people in. With the second point, I mean to say it draws less people in.
I don't think the second point is debatable. For the exact same reasons battlefield see's 1/4th as many sales as a CoD title. It's not THE multiplayer game to play, so it's brushed aside by most because a lot of gamers dedicate themselves to one game franchise
That bold comment I think is extremely biased. FPS sell better on 360 for the simple reason that there are 5:3 360's to PS3's in Americas, and Americas is about (2/3) to (4/5) the FPS market (depending the the game). Look at Call of Duty and Halo, and you will see most sales are in Americas despite PS3 having roughly the same sized market in EMEAA. The only time a 360 FPS sells more then 40% a PS3 FPS is when the 360 version is advertized more, as in the case of Homefront.
As for preferences, everyone has their own. I'm a big Lost Planet 1 fan(Not 2, 2 way terrible), but it never sold that well, even as an exclusive (timed, but who knew when it came out?). Halo, CoD, and Gears sell well because A. They are actually great polished games which get very high reviews, B. They appeal to the masses, similar to Mario Kart.
Killzone desrves more sales, but with 3 exclusive shooters to balance on the PS3, all relatively new franchises, and a much smaller instal base in the Americas region, I can see why sales are slow.
BTW for me, I tend to play almost every online game I can get my hands on, even if the experience is only par. I mostly play online, and I burn through all the online achievements/trophies relatively quickly. Only time I stop playing online for a game is when matchmaking takes a long time, and has unbalanced matched. That's why I stopped playing Front Mission online. When I get Crysis 2, I'll play it online, even though the MP demo kind of sucked. I'm currently only playing Halo and CoD online, but craving a new experience.
P.S. I find it funny to always see CGI in an arguement..
|
