I think RolStoppable's post must be given a proper mention. Historically the US market hasn't been significant as a target for Adventure games since the demise of the old Lucas Arts, and Asia has never given a chance to the Adventure genre... most of Adventure games' sales are in Europe, so if Zack & Wiki reach 150k sales outside of Europe it must be considered a success, especially if you take in account it's low budget and being in a genre pratically unexistant in consoles.

If Z&W does well enough on Wii, I can see Capcom porting it to PC, where the bigger fanbase exists.

I think UT3 did 34k, 50% of what Epic was expecting (67k). A big flop, especially considering it barely entered the NPD PC top20 (it reached 19th place only).

The US is not a big PC market. With it's +300million inhabitants, it has a smaller PC market than Germany (80million) and South Korea (50million), just to put thing into perspective. US probably is about 15% of the entire PC market. Now, if a PC game comes close to 100k in the first weeks, then it's a definite success, like Crysis which did 87k and 25% higher than expectations in the NPD.

If they had advertised Uncharted as much as Halo 3 and it got the same media attention and praise, it would have sold a couple million by now

lol

i think its ironic when you look at capcom's games. the more casual looking game (Z&W) has sold pretty poorly, while their two hardcore games (resident evil 4 and umbrella chronicles) have blown away expectations, nearing 2m combined sales

No simple answer. It comes down to four things:

1. The game itself.

Forget quality - we know shitty games can sell as well as good ones. But some games will simply have a limited appeal. Zack and Wiki is a perfect point. "A new point and click adventure!" is not going to get the average gamers blood going. The good thing about Z&W is that this weakness was evident from day one, it was budgeted accordingly, and should not need many sales to make it a success. The problem is when normal, or even excessive, resources are dedicated to such titles (Viva Pinata?)

2. Timing.

Don't release it up against heavy weights like Mario or HALO. Again, Zack and Wiki is a prime example, but I can also point to Beyond Good and Evil.

3. Marketing.

Part of this is game design and ackaging - really, does anyone look at the characters and box art for Zack and Wiki and think "Boy! What loveable, zany characters! I must purchase this game!" Compare that to the creepy diving suit of Bioshock. While it doesn't ensure a purchase, I suspect it got a lot of people to at least pick up the box and see what it's about.

Then there's just getting the word out about your game, and convincing people to buy it. This can be especially tough in a crowded field - how many average gamers really know the differences between the various WW2 shooters out there? I still can't find anyone to tell me why Killzone 2 is going to be any different than dozens of similar titles that have been released. Gamerace's example ior Prince of Persia is a perfect example of how to do it right. Despite the fact that it's an adventure game set in booby trapped temples, PoPs ancient persia setting and, most importantly, Sands of Time feature immediately distinguish it from Tomb Raider.

This is why established IPs really are so much more valuable than new ones - they're already presold, and consumers have past games as a measuring stick. Really, as awesome as SMG is, just how many people would have grabbed it if it "Puppy Pete's Planetary Adventure"? Does anyone think it a coincidence that Knights of the Old Republic was a platinum seller while Jade Empire (by the same developers) went straight to the bargain bin?

I really think this is a problem with Uncharted. If it was Lara Croft, it's presold. But just looking at the footage and screenshots in ads doesn't convey what makes the game good enough for a purchase. Slap some GOTY labels on the box, and maybe it'll move faster.

4. Dumb luck.

Sometimes a games fails despite doing everything right. Eternal Darkness seems to me the quintessential example. It filled a much needed niche on the GCN, the horror genre was near it's peak, had great reviews, was published by freaking Nintendo (really, when has anything else ever been needed on a Nintendo console?) and the sanity meter and historic scope gave it marketable hooks to distinguished it from Resident Evil, Silent Hill, etc. Thankfully it's miserable sales have not yet killed the prospect of a sequel (which may come if SK ever finished Too Human).

I blame the government

Lack of advertising, the only ads I've seen for the PS3 and it's games outside of gaming sites is those lame TV ads with all the weird analogy's and circus people and "PS3, Play B3YOND" tacked on at the end. Metroid Prime 3 had zero advertising in Australia (and most parts of the world) as did a lot of the 360 games (ME had none, Bioshock had very little, ditto Forza aside from the bundle pack and PGR4) the only big 360 title that received media attention was Halo.

There's a fair bit of advertising on gaming sites, but they are pointless, because games like Uncharted, UT3 and Metroid Prime 3 would have been known to hardcore gamers and they would have bought them already.

Reason why games like MP8 and EA playground (so all the crappy multiplayer mini game compilations) get so much love in the sales is because Nintendo Advertises like crazy on TV.

That's easy. All of thee above. Maybe system makers should sell new titles along with sports, racing and kiddy games at $40 and established franchises at $60. I just bought NFS PS (a game I was going to wait and could've waited 'til it hit $30 to buy) from amazon because it's on sale for $40. It'll certainly make you give a game a second look. I'm not saying this would make every game sale well but it could help. I'd get two games for $80 but 2 for $120? I'm going to have to think about that. To add: I just wasn't into uncharted and I had no idea what UT was.

 Well it wasnt that bad , but yeah , it didnt deserve that high sales ( oh , and PC version did extremly well in the EU ) .

I would say that the company which released the console , and the games developers are equally responsible.

First, the developers shouldnt have created a crappy game

Second, Sony/MS and yes Nintendo shouldnt have allowed the game to see the light of day before it was ready.

Good developers without lots of time make a good game that isn't terribly long.

Bad developers without lots of time make a long game that is terribly bad.

There's always exceptions to the rule, but thats the way it goes.

Also in regards to the sales data, I think it's safe to say that good games that were unknown alot of times have "legs" and sell more as more people hear how good it is. Bad games that are hyped to no end sell alot in the beginning and slow down considerably as people find out it sucked.

Games like Mario Party 8 may be reveiwed low, but there are people who like those party games and buy those party games. Mario Party 8 isn't going to suprise alot of people about what it is.