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

Forums - Sony Discussion - Resistance 3: Disappointing Sales Cast Series into Doubt

ThePS3News on 30 September 2011

Wow, I did not know this thread was still going.

Looks like you guys actually do care about how well games perform in sales.  :)



Around the Network
rf40928 on 30 September 2011
Scoobes said:
rf40928 said:
mjk45 said:
rf40928 said:
osamanobama said:
I dont know where they got 270k from (i guess first week), but it has sold 370k, and that just in 2 weeks, so I dont know what they mean its been out a while. After 3 weeks it should have around 450k, and will likely have around 1.5 million by years end.
So this article is rather stupid

370k is not good at all for 2 weeks of sales .. and its even bad for a few days of a major title..   Gears of War 3 just sold 3 million copies in 6 days..and it cost alot less to develop Gears 3 ..then .. Resistance 3 mainly because of the data size of the game..and it cost less to ship on DVD then BD .. ( For a major title, Gears of War has had one of the lowest production cost of a major game series. Gears 1 cost 10 million.. Gear 2 cost 12 million, Gear 3 maybe cost 15 & so far Gears 3 has grossed 177 million with the 3 million copies sold so far )..  The majority of any games sales are in the first weeks, and after that is pretty much casual sales.  Alot of fans seem to do this and say "Yeah that will sell a few million more over the next couple years " , but what I've noticed on the PS3 is that mostly is not true.  It was true on the PS2, because the PS2 had double the console userbase of the PS3... Comparing over 120 million PS2's sold to 50 million PS3's is a huge difference - when you consider the casual and holiday sales of either compared.  Alot of stuidos are going multiplatform and others that aren't dont take the financial risk of making 'big' games. ( 'Big' games: meaning games that use alot of space & cost more because they have more content, more data, which required more man hours to develop) Even if you see MS go bluray next gen you wont see alot of studios making 'big' games still.. it'll be a slow process because of the huge cost of producing big titles that take alot more man hours& money to develop.  Looking at 'big'  games-  like Killzone 2 which cost 45 million.. you're talking they need to sell  3 Million just to make a profit worth it.  Dont forget you have to absorb the cost of the BD disc the games are shipped on, the packaging and logistical cost, and advertising cost on all media .. there's more cost still - you're  of course paying the studio back what it cost to make the game, plus what is left is profit.. and they still have to pay rent, employee insurance and other fees most never know exist.. or think of .. like paying share holders and executives.. if the "Important" people arent being paid they could care less if the game did 'break even'..

Data size isn't everything all it means is less compression yet you use it to imply that resistance 3 must cost more to make than Gears 3 because of disk storage BTW give us a link for your gears costings.

Ok heres some links .. I said Gears 1 was 10 million to develop, and Gears 2 was 12 million ..

http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/96188/cheap-epic-says-gears-of-war-cost-less-than-10-million/ ( Gears 1 )

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/27008924 ( Gear 2  )  and http://neogaf.net/forum/showthread.php?t=371971

And Gears 3 was on a Gears 3 video, I'll try to find a link, but the evidence thus far is pretty clear- which is : Gears has been very CHEAP to produce.. AND factually speaking most successes like this had much higher cost... I know more effort was put into Resistance 3 as hopes this would break the game open and this always equates to more money - not just more data.. afterall people do get paid to make games - they arent made by illegal aliens that are smart enough make games - and somehow dumb enough to accept paid low wages huh?  Didnt think so..

And yes.. you're right...  more data doesnt always mean more cost..but usually it does.. The most recent GTA had a huge budget - but part of that reason is it was multiple platform game .. In multi-plat titles the risk is relatively low compared to exclusives which might not make the money back.. The sales history of Resistance 1 and 2  has been less then Gears 1 & 2..... If Resistance 3 sells less then R2 did ( and its looking that way - As R2 also sold less then R1 ).. you'll probably see no R4 

I believe Epic actually have a Chinese subsidary. If they had a hand in the development of Gears then I can imagine they'd be a lot cheaper than their Western equivalents.

I also think the dev costs are low because Epic aren't including the original engine development costs for creating UE3 (which is fair considerring they license it out and it's basically its own product). However, Insomniac have effectively done the same thing by creating an engine and using it to release a new game every year (alternating between Ratchet and Resistance). I really don't see how Resistance can cost that much more than Gears.

It may sound like just another thing to point out, but while development cost are the major part of the money concern.. companies also absorb the cost of the media..In the old days Nintendo and the developer had to absorb the cost of a cartridge... it was often around 20-30 dollars they had to eat and the rest was profit.. It was one reasons developers jumped shipped for PS1 over N64  when games first came out on disc media.. there was much more proft to be made..

Nowadays.. even though it looks good compared to the 'old days'.. media cost still add up... and losing million of dollars on media could still matter when you're on a tight budget.   A high quality DVD cost less then a $1 in bulk .. an average brand BD disc runs over $3 in bulk ... Take the #1 best selling game on both consoles:  COD Black Ops XB 360 sold 13 million: They probably had to eat over 10 million dollars just in disc media.. On PS3 - COD Black Ops sold  10.6 million:  At a very discounted $2 per BD disc they had to eat over 20 million dollars just for the media.. then you have to still have to factor in the plastic case, printed front cover insert, inside booklette, plastic wrapper, and anti-theft tag.. So selling 2.5 million less BD copies of the same game still cost 10 million dollars more just because of the media type.. A couple years ago BD cost even more so it wouldve been worse then now.. by the time next gen comes out BD disc should be closer to what a DVD cost now..



rf40928 on 01 October 2011
Scoobes said:
rf40928 said:
mjk45 said:
rf40928 said:
osamanobama said:
I dont know where they got 270k from (i guess first week), but it has sold 370k, and that just in 2 weeks, so I dont know what they mean its been out a while. After 3 weeks it should have around 450k, and will likely have around 1.5 million by years end.
So this article is rather stupid

370k is not good at all for 2 weeks of sales .. and its even bad for a few days of a major title..   Gears of War 3 just sold 3 million copies in 6 days..and it cost alot less to develop Gears 3 ..then .. Resistance 3 mainly because of the data size of the game..and it cost less to ship on DVD then BD .. ( For a major title, Gears of War has had one of the lowest production cost of a major game series. Gears 1 cost 10 million.. Gear 2 cost 12 million, Gear 3 maybe cost 15 & so far Gears 3 has grossed 177 million with the 3 million copies sold so far )..  The majority of any games sales are in the first weeks, and after that is pretty much casual sales.  Alot of fans seem to do this and say "Yeah that will sell a few million more over the next couple years " , but what I've noticed on the PS3 is that mostly is not true.  It was true on the PS2, because the PS2 had double the console userbase of the PS3... Comparing over 120 million PS2's sold to 50 million PS3's is a huge difference - when you consider the casual and holiday sales of either compared.  Alot of stuidos are going multiplatform and others that aren't dont take the financial risk of making 'big' games. ( 'Big' games: meaning games that use alot of space & cost more because they have more content, more data, which required more man hours to develop) Even if you see MS go bluray next gen you wont see alot of studios making 'big' games still.. it'll be a slow process because of the huge cost of producing big titles that take alot more man hours& money to develop.  Looking at 'big'  games-  like Killzone 2 which cost 45 million.. you're talking they need to sell  3 Million just to make a profit worth it.  Dont forget you have to absorb the cost of the BD disc the games are shipped on, the packaging and logistical cost, and advertising cost on all media .. there's more cost still - you're  of course paying the studio back what it cost to make the game, plus what is left is profit.. and they still have to pay rent, employee insurance and other fees most never know exist.. or think of .. like paying share holders and executives.. if the "Important" people arent being paid they could care less if the game did 'break even'..

Data size isn't everything all it means is less compression yet you use it to imply that resistance 3 must cost more to make than Gears 3 because of disk storage BTW give us a link for your gears costings.

Ok heres some links .. I said Gears 1 was 10 million to develop, and Gears 2 was 12 million ..

http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/96188/cheap-epic-says-gears-of-war-cost-less-than-10-million/ ( Gears 1 )

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/27008924 ( Gear 2  )  and http://neogaf.net/forum/showthread.php?t=371971

And Gears 3 was on a Gears 3 video, I'll try to find a link, but the evidence thus far is pretty clear- which is : Gears has been very CHEAP to produce.. AND factually speaking most successes like this had much higher cost... I know more effort was put into Resistance 3 as hopes this would break the game open and this always equates to more money - not just more data.. afterall people do get paid to make games - they arent made by illegal aliens that are smart enough make games - and somehow dumb enough to accept paid low wages huh?  Didnt think so..

And yes.. you're right...  more data doesnt always mean more cost..but usually it does.. The most recent GTA had a huge budget - but part of that reason is it was multiple platform game .. In multi-plat titles the risk is relatively low compared to exclusives which might not make the money back.. The sales history of Resistance 1 and 2  has been less then Gears 1 & 2..... If Resistance 3 sells less then R2 did ( and its looking that way - As R2 also sold less then R1 ).. you'll probably see no R4 

I believe Epic actually have a Chinese subsidary. If they had a hand in the development of Gears then I can imagine they'd be a lot cheaper than their Western equivalents.

I also think the dev costs are low because Epic aren't including the original engine development costs for creating UE3 (which is fair considerring they license it out and it's basically its own product). However, Insomniac have effectively done the same thing by creating an engine and using it to release a new game every year (alternating between Ratchet and Resistance). I really don't see how Resistance can cost that much more than Gears.


I beleive you're right about the engine cost..but there's no way to know about the Chinese subsidary, but I doubt it because while Epic is the parent company of Chair Entertainment, Titan, and People Can Fly, the studios it has ( that you refer to ) in Shanghai, Seoul, and Tokyo  would've done minor ( if any ) work at all... EPIC, which is based in Cary, North Carolina is credited with all the devlopment work and has been very open about the development of Gears.. stating to the public that no more then 10- 20 people were working on any Gears game at any given time ( which is why these games havent been cranking out fast ) - and also why cost was lower then big time games like COD - ( which COD has TWO Large Studios working on COD year round )

The development cost of Resistance seems to have been guarded very closely .. its hard to find much on it.. which would lead some to beleive they dont want anyone to know what they spent ( what they lost -or- didnt make ).. Companies dont brag about bad numbers the way Epic talks about their 'good' numbers because it makes shareholders nervous.. So while you might be right and Resistance may have not cost alot more to make ( possibly )..... they dont seem to want to talk about it..



rf40928 on 01 October 2011
Runa216 said:
Normally I'd hate to use the "PS3 users have so much choice and can't afford it" argument, but numbers don't lie.

This year on PS3, we've gotten the following retail exclusives:

LittleBigPlanet 2
ICO Collection
MLB 11: the Show
God of War: origins Collection
Killzone 3
Resistance 3
inFamous 2
Disgaea 4
Yakuza 4
Prince of Persia Trilogy
Tomb Raider Trilogy
MotorStorm: Apocalypse
Socom 4

Plus we still have Ratchet and Clank: all 4 One, and Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception on the horizon.


Meanwhile, the Xbox has gotten the following Retail Exclusives:

Gears of War 3

And they still have Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary Edition and foza 4.

That's 13 games vs 1....or if you wanna chop out the compilations, that's still 9 vs 1. I'm sorry, but I'm really thinking that flawed argument (that the PS3 has enough variety to disperse its crowd) may very well have some merit.


Evidentally you're a PS3 fanboy..and you arent counting games you know nothing of ...

XB 360 has the following exclusives all set to be out by end of 2011:

Gears3

Forza 4

 Kingdoms

 Project Draco

XCOM

Star Wars Kinect

Codename D

Steal Battalion Heavy Armor

Rise of Nightmares

 Haunt

.... of the top 10 best selling PS3 games.. only 3 of those were exclusives (#6 Metal Gear Solid - sold 5.2 million, #7 Uncharted 2 - 4.8 million copies sold, #8 FF XXIII 4.7 million copies sold )  the rest were multi-platform which sold way more and took the top positions.. The Total sales of PS3 exclusives in 'Top 10' best selling PS3 games list = 14.7 million game copies sold..

... of the top 10 best selling Xbox 360 games.. 5 games were exclusives ( #3 Halo 3 - sold 11.3 million,  #4 Kinect Adventures 10.5 million, #6 Halo Reach 8.71 million {still climbing slowly it just passed Halo 2 sales 2 months ago },  #9 Gears of War 2 sold  6.13 million, #10 Gear of War .. sold   5.96 million ).. The Total sales of XB 360 exclusives in the 'Top 10' best selling 360 games list =  42.5 million copies..

Whose selling more exclusives? Nothing to do with variety IMHO opinion and more to do with kids would rather play FPS's.. afterall, the best selling game on both consoles is COD Black Ops..  Not a racing title, or an RPG..  and the top selling games on PS3 are multi plats like COD and GTA - [retty much dispelling the 'myth' that the XB 360 is a FPS console - when in fact the best selling games on tghe PS3 are also FPS's ! ... The only difference? MS has an exclusive FPS that works for it like Halo..  PS3 has to reply solely on COD and needs its own FPS with the right formula.. They might have to wait till the PS4



ElGranCabeza on 01 October 2011

The game sucks.



Around the Network
Scoobes on 01 October 2011
rf40928 said:
Scoobes said:
rf40928 said:

Ok heres some links .. I said Gears 1 was 10 million to develop, and Gears 2 was 12 million ..

http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/96188/cheap-epic-says-gears-of-war-cost-less-than-10-million/ ( Gears 1 )

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/27008924 ( Gear 2  )  and http://neogaf.net/forum/showthread.php?t=371971

And Gears 3 was on a Gears 3 video, I'll try to find a link, but the evidence thus far is pretty clear- which is : Gears has been very CHEAP to produce.. AND factually speaking most successes like this had much higher cost... I know more effort was put into Resistance 3 as hopes this would break the game open and this always equates to more money - not just more data.. afterall people do get paid to make games - they arent made by illegal aliens that are smart enough make games - and somehow dumb enough to accept paid low wages huh?  Didnt think so..

And yes.. you're right...  more data doesnt always mean more cost..but usually it does.. The most recent GTA had a huge budget - but part of that reason is it was multiple platform game .. In multi-plat titles the risk is relatively low compared to exclusives which might not make the money back.. The sales history of Resistance 1 and 2  has been less then Gears 1 & 2..... If Resistance 3 sells less then R2 did ( and its looking that way - As R2 also sold less then R1 ).. you'll probably see no R4 

I believe Epic actually have a Chinese subsidary. If they had a hand in the development of Gears then I can imagine they'd be a lot cheaper than their Western equivalents.

I also think the dev costs are low because Epic aren't including the original engine development costs for creating UE3 (which is fair considerring they license it out and it's basically its own product). However, Insomniac have effectively done the same thing by creating an engine and using it to release a new game every year (alternating between Ratchet and Resistance). I really don't see how Resistance can cost that much more than Gears.


I beleive you're right about the engine cost..but there's no way to know about the Chinese subsidary, but I doubt it because while Epic is the parent company of Chair Entertainment, Titan, and People Can Fly, the studios it has ( that you refer to ) in Shanghai, Seoul, and Tokyo  would've done minor ( if any ) work at all... EPIC, which is based in Cary, North Carolina is credited with all the devlopment work and has been very open about the development of Gears.. stating to the public that no more then 10- 20 people were working on any Gears game at any given time ( which is why these games havent been cranking out fast ) - and also why cost was lower then big time games like COD - ( which COD has TWO Large Studios working on COD year round )

The development cost of Resistance seems to have been guarded very closely .. its hard to find much on it.. which would lead some to beleive they dont want anyone to know what they spent ( what they lost -or- didnt make ).. Companies dont brag about bad numbers the way Epic talks about their 'good' numbers because it makes shareholders nervous.. So while you might be right and Resistance may have not cost alot more to make ( possibly )..... they dont seem to want to talk about it..

Most developers don't give out their budget costs and even when they do they usually give either a range or rounded figure. With Epic, it's in their best interests to give the impression that UE 3.0 costs keep development budgets down so they'll do whatever they can do to publicly claim a game budget is as low as possible. All companies do this to sell their products and you always have to take such marketing talk with a pinch of salt, especially as UE 3.0 licenses are probably quite a nice earner for them (the gamepro link especially looks like a marketing presentation). I don't doubt that there was a core of 10-20 people working on the games at any one time, but they're probably ignoring a large chunk of personnel that would do important but minor jobs and the programmers that are constantly tweaking the engine (as they'd probably fall under a seperate Engine development cost).

Insomniac on the other hand have no such product/Engine to sell and have no need to give out budget costs leaving us guessing. However, considerring they've used the same engine over the entire gen and the fact that it's the third game (lots learnt from previous 2), I don't see how the budget can differ much from Gears. It's all guesswork though.




Get your Portable ID!

freebs2 on 01 October 2011

While it's quite good. I always tought Resistance was a redundant series in the shooters market. I'd be happy if they pass on something new.



d21lewis on 01 October 2011
Runa216 said:
Normally I'd hate to use the "PS3 users have so much choice and can't afford it" argument, but numbers don't lie.

This year on PS3, we've gotten the following retail exclusives:

LittleBigPlanet 2
ICO Collection
MLB 11: the Show
God of War: origins Collection
Killzone 3*
Resistance 3
inFamous 2
Disgaea 4
Yakuza 4
Prince of Persia Trilogy
Tomb Raider Trilogy
MotorStorm: Apocalypse
Socom 4

Plus we still have Ratchet and Clank: all 4 One, and Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception on the horizon.


 


This is off topic and I apologize but I just have to say this.  I check out youtube fanboy videos and certain ones talk about how the PS3 had a major exclusive for every month of the year.  I've always wondered what those games were but I never really took the time to seek them out.  I consider myself an all around gamer.  I'll play FPS's (not my preferred genre but I play 'em), WRPG's, JRPG's, Racing, Puzzle, Party, Action Adventure (my favorite!), TPS's, Strategy, or what have you.  Just speaking for myself and myself alone, as an owner of a Wii, PS3, 360, DS, 3DS, and PSP, when it comes to having access to every game on the market and enough money to buy any game I want whenever I want it--that list is kinda.....meh.

Of this year's 2011 titles for PS3, I grabbed Little Big Planet 2 (great game!), No More Heroes (PS3 exclusive in the U.S.), Killzone 3 (traded it in after a couple of weeks), and that's it.  I'll definitely grab Uncharted 3 on day 1 and I'll eventually get God of War Origins Collection when it's incredibly cheap, though.  Again, I'll say that this is just my opinion but that list ain't all that.



Runa216 on 01 October 2011
d21lewis said:
Runa216 said:
Normally I'd hate to use the "PS3 users have so much choice and can't afford it" argument, but numbers don't lie.

This year on PS3, we've gotten the following retail exclusives:

LittleBigPlanet 2
ICO Collection
MLB 11: the Show
God of War: origins Collection
Killzone 3*
Resistance 3
inFamous 2
Disgaea 4
Yakuza 4
Prince of Persia Trilogy
Tomb Raider Trilogy
MotorStorm: Apocalypse
Socom 4

Plus we still have Ratchet and Clank: all 4 One, and Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception on the horizon.


 


This is off topic and I apologize but I just have to say this.  I check out youtube fanboy videos and certain ones talk about how the PS3 had a major exclusive for every month of the year.  I've always wondered what those games were but I never really took the time to seek them out.  I consider myself an all around gamer.  I'll play FPS's (not my preferred genre but I play 'em), WRPG's, JRPG's, Racing, Puzzle, Party, Action Adventure (my favorite!), TPS's, Strategy, or what have you.  Just speaking for myself and myself alone, as an owner of a Wii, PS3, 360, DS, 3DS, and PSP, when it comes to having access to every game on the market and enough money to buy any game I want whenever I want it--that list is kinda.....meh.

Of this year's 2011 titles for PS3, I grabbed Little Big Planet 2 (great game!), No More Heroes (PS3 exclusive in the U.S.), Killzone 3 (traded it in after a couple of weeks), and that's it.  I'll definitely grab Uncharted 3 on day 1 and I'll eventually get God of War Origins Collection when it's incredibly cheap, though.  Again, I'll say that this is just my opinion but that list ain't all that.

Well I've picked up LittleBigPlanet 2, Killzone 3, inFamous 2, Resistance 3, and the ICO collection, and they were all great so far.  I also have already Pre-ordered Drake and Ratchet and Clank due to their pedigree.  but the thing is, look at the variance in genres here: 

Platformer
Adventure
Sports
Action
Shooter
Shooter
Sandbox
JRPG
Sandbox
Adventure
Adventure
Racing
Shooter

again, pretty varied, but whatever.  Not posting in this thread anymore because evidently I'm a fanboy/troll every time I post.  



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

d21lewis on 01 October 2011
Runa216 said:
d21lewis said:
Runa216 said:
Normally I'd hate to use the "PS3 users have so much choice and can't afford it" argument, but numbers don't lie.

This year on PS3, we've gotten the following retail exclusives:

LittleBigPlanet 2
ICO Collection
MLB 11: the Show
God of War: origins Collection
Killzone 3*
Resistance 3
inFamous 2
Disgaea 4
Yakuza 4
Prince of Persia Trilogy
Tomb Raider Trilogy
MotorStorm: Apocalypse
Socom 4

Plus we still have Ratchet and Clank: all 4 One, and Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception on the horizon.


 


This is off topic and I apologize but I just have to say this.  I check out youtube fanboy videos and certain ones talk about how the PS3 had a major exclusive for every month of the year.  I've always wondered what those games were but I never really took the time to seek them out.  I consider myself an all around gamer.  I'll play FPS's (not my preferred genre but I play 'em), WRPG's, JRPG's, Racing, Puzzle, Party, Action Adventure (my favorite!), TPS's, Strategy, or what have you.  Just speaking for myself and myself alone, as an owner of a Wii, PS3, 360, DS, 3DS, and PSP, when it comes to having access to every game on the market and enough money to buy any game I want whenever I want it--that list is kinda.....meh.

Of this year's 2011 titles for PS3, I grabbed Little Big Planet 2 (great game!), No More Heroes (PS3 exclusive in the U.S.), Killzone 3 (traded it in after a couple of weeks), and that's it.  I'll definitely grab Uncharted 3 on day 1 and I'll eventually get God of War Origins Collection when it's incredibly cheap, though.  Again, I'll say that this is just my opinion but that list ain't all that.

Well I've picked up LittleBigPlanet 2, Killzone 3, inFamous 2, Resistance 3, and the ICO collection, and they were all great so far.  I also have already Pre-ordered Drake and Ratchet and Clank due to their pedigree.  but the thing is, look at the variance in genres here: 

Platformer
Adventure
Sports
Action
Shooter
Shooter
Sandbox
JRPG
Sandbox
Adventure
Adventure
Racing
Shooter

again, pretty varied, but whatever.  Not posting in this thread anymore because evidently I'm a fanboy/troll every time I post.  

I figured I'd get quoted and I had already made up my mind not to respond to any posts but I will respond to yours.  There's nothing wrong with the list of games that you posted.  I don't think you're a fanboy, either.  I just watch a lot of youtube videos and some people list PS3 exclusives in an attempt to get a rise out of the 360 fanbase.  As one who walks the line between light and dark (how dramatic does THAT sound?  Pretty cool, eh?), I don't think either side has that much of an advantage over the other. 

It wasn't my intention to make you feel like you did anything wrong because you didn't.  You posted your thoughts/opinion and I responded with mine.  I made sure to say "In my opinion" as often as I could because I know that just because a game doesn't appeal to me, that doesn't mean that there aren't millions of people to whom said game will appeal.  At the same time, there are millions that would look at that list of games with apathy.  I'm one of those guys.  I'll end up with around 70-100 new games purchased between January 1st and December 31st, 2011 and not many of them will be PS3 exclusives.  The vast majority will be multi-platform which, from my particular point of view, offer more of what I like.  There's probably gamers out there that only care about the games you listed and will buy each and every one of them.  Who am I to judge?

Don't think I was attacking you and if I've quoted you in the past, don't take those personally, either (I don't remember if I did).  All I do is post my feelings and I don't hold back.  You shouldn't hold back, either.  If you don't post what you think, then what's the point?  Basically, what I'm saying is, I'm sorry if it seems like I'm against you.

See ya in the Chartz!