I purchased the game and was massively disappointed. I am not surprised by the lack of interest in this title as the character roster of this game is abysmal. If Sony had properly invested in this software and revisited many games of the PS2 era like Final Fantasy, Tomb Raider and so on and included them as playable characters then lord behold this would of been a smashing hit. However, the only 'known' characters are Drake and Kratos, the others are not recognizable, popular to a main audience or have yet to be released.

Vinniegambini said: I purchased the game and was massively disappointed. I am not surprised by the lack of interest in this title as the character roster of this game is abysmal. If Sony had properly invested in this software and revisited many games of the PS2 era like Final Fantasy, Tomb Raider and so on and included them as playable characters then lord behold this would of been a smashing hit. However, the only 'known' characters are Drake and Kratos, the others are not recognizable, popular to a main audience or have yet to be released.

You are 100% correct.

However this has been gone over countless times and the response from the posters on this site who support all things PS3 is that the roster is very good and that they know most of the characters, forgetting that the average person who owns a PS3 and isn't obsessed with playing video games will not have heard of them. Failing that you will get excuses that actually most people who have played some PS3 exclusives will know most of them, again rubbish.

I don't play a lot of games in terms of hours but do play most that are released and there are some on the list I have neither heard of nor even seen before. Ridiculous when you're talking about a roster of roughly only 20 characters. If the roster is going to be that small, you make damn sure every character counts.

They will repeatedly make comparisons to SSBB that you haven't heard of a lot of characters in that game either, forgetting that the roster in SSBB still includes lots of known characters too.

It's like Marvel Vs Capcom type crossover games. Sure there's a bunch of characters people haven't heard of or seen before than only a marvel comic nut will know, but there's a massive number of ones that are known and the new ones are cool, look funky and are fun to play. Same goes since the beginning of those games where the character roster was lower but all the characters there would have been known and liked, or disliked, it doesn't matter - they had personality.

PSABR characters have no background to build off except for the single game series they were in prior to it, no history, no charm, no lore.

As you say, if they'd have coughed up the cash for the licensing of the type of characters who should have been in this game it could have been fantastic and a sales beast. They didn't and instead we were hearing about DLC even before the game was released likely of characters that should already be in the game but weren't because they didn't want to pay up. Now the buyer of the game will have to pay for this.

Thanks Sony, and thanks all the supporters of this game. It might a "first effort", but it's a bad effort. It could easily have been better with some money invested in it. It's failings aren't down to it being a "first effort", but for being a cynical rip-off of a great concept that has it's problems rooted in Sony's greed.

It's not arguable. Just chucking in  5 classics from the likes of Crash, Spyro, Cloud, Tidus, Serge, Yuna types...any PS2 character basically would have been a recipe for success. Unfortunately that would have meant paying 3rd parties for licensing and gone over the $5 budget per character.

Lbpk isn't debate able I went to the store and it was on sale for like 25 dollars.

That objectively is a flop.

Ji99saw said: Time it was posted is irrelevant, it answers your question and debunks your assertion that no one other than Gilgamesh said it would sell 5 million. You can spin it as much as you want but it doesn't change the facts. Jay your better than this just admit you were wrong and move on.

To be fair, I never made any assertions. I simply asked a question. True, it answers my question, but I can give my analysis, can't I? After all, you seem shocked out how people's prediction have changed so dramatically from being a "5 miller seller." I was just letting you know that predictions have been dropping gradually for the past few weeks. Not sure what I'm "spinning" either.

It is true that I believed you would be wrong. And by virtue of that fact, yes, I am wrong. I am wrong and I feel shamed (though only a little bit). But you say "nice in." Excellent, I'd love to move on. I'm now replying to your original stance when you were shocked at the posters in this thread.

Jay520 said: Ji99saw said: Time it was posted is irrelevant, it answers your question and debunks your assertion that no one other than Gilgamesh said it would sell 5 million. You can spin it as much as you want but it doesn't change the facts. Jay your better than this just admit you were wrong and move on. To be fair, I never made any assertions. I simply asked a question. True, it answers my question, but I can give my analysis, can't I? After all, you seem shocked out how people's prediction have changed so dramatically from being a "5 miller seller." I was just letting you know that predictions have been dropping gradually for the past dew weeks. Not sure what I'm "spinning" either.

You said this...

"Please list two people that said this game would be a "5 million seller." I'll give you one: Gilgamesh. Now, please give me just one more person who said this would be a "5 million seller."

 

You challenged him, he delivered and then some!

Don't try and pretend that was just a simple question that you weren't sure you knew the answer to, as it just makes you look silly. Afterall, you wouldn't have even made the post if you weren't so sure, would you now ;)

noname2200 said: Jay520 said: same could be said in the reverse. For successful new IPs, large openings are the exception, not the rule. It's more times than not a low opening (100-200k). One week of sales is really a poor indicator of long term sales for new IPs. (Speaking on PABR here. Lbpk is most likely a flop). Hope springs eternal, I suppose. I'll close this discussion by pointing out that 1) you're constructing a narrative out of a fawlsity, and more importantly 2) the vast majority of new IPs have low openings...and poor lifetime sales.

Perhaps most successful new IPs did not have low openings (I don't feel like looking it up right now). But do you disagree that this has been the case for a large number of them? Specifically new IPs on the PS3 too.

As for your second point...you're warranting calling it a flop because of what the majority of past games have done. If that were valid, that warrant you to call it a flop even before its released. Since the vast majority of new IPs have low sales, and PABR is a new IP, therefore it will flop. But of course that doesn't make sense.

The same goes for what you're doing now, except to a lesser extreme. You're saying the vast majority of new IPs with low openings have poor lifetime sales, and PABR is a new IP with a low opening, therefore it will have poor lifetime sales, therefore it will flop. This is nearly as bad as the aforementioned example.

Even if the vast majority of new IPs with low openings have poor lifetime sales, that doesn't mean its accurate to call a game a flop already. Think about this: If we called every new IP with a low opening a flop, we would have been wrong about a large portion of games. That portion would so large, that it I think it should sway the mentality on deciding when we can safely label a game as flopping.

Jay520 said: noname2200 said: Jay520 said: same could be said in the reverse. For successful new IPs, large openings are the exception, not the rule. It's more times than not a low opening (100-200k). One week of sales is really a poor indicator of long term sales for new IPs. (Speaking on PABR here. Lbpk is most likely a flop). Hope springs eternal, I suppose. I'll close this discussion by pointing out that 1) you're constructing a narrative out of a fawlsity, and more importantly 2) the vast majority of new IPs have low openings...and poor lifetime sales. Perhaps most successful new IPs did not have low openings (I don't feel like looking it up right now). But do you disagree that this has been the case for a large number of them? Specifically new IPs on the PS3 too. As for your second point...you're warranting calling it a flop because of what the majority of past games have done. If that were valid, that warrant you to call it a flop even before its released. Since the vast majority of new IPs have low sales, and PABR is a new IP, therefore it will flop. But of course that doesn't make sense. The same goes for what you're doing now, except to a lesser extreme. You're saying the vast majority of new IPs with low openings have poor lifetime sales, and PABR is a new IP with a low opening, therefore it will have poor lifetime sales, therefore it will flop. This is nearly as bad as the aforementioned example. Even if the vast majority of new IPs with low openings have poor lifetime sales, that doesn't mean its accurate to call a game a flop already. Think about this: If we called every new IP with a low opening a flop, we would have been wrong about a large portion of games. That portion would so large, that it I think it should sway the mentality on deciding when we can safely label a game as flopping.

...the false narrative continues.

You write very well but since the people reading your post are in full view of the facts, unlike in a newspaper where the journalist is handing out the facts, it means that we can read this for what it is.

Basically, you are creating a narrative according to values that suit your argument and not discussing the case at hand.

Your second paragraph is a benchmark of your false narrative, you've used a ridiculous hypothetical dreamland set of values that make no sense, (your own words!), then attempted to pass judgement on someone's argument using those ridiculous pillars of nonsensical nonsense.....Nonsense!

The trouble with the "new ip" card, is that we've heard it before and it never makes it acceptable and each case has to be judged on it's merrits. PSABR is a holiday title, it's received pretty good publicity, it's got the word "Playstation" in it, people were expecting a lot. It's not an exotic title, it should appeal to a large audience, it's not in a wierd genre.

So I don't think the "new ip" card is suitable at all in this case, and even if it were. Then the sales are still bad considering it's holiday season.

It's too early for paragraph 3 to make any sense at this point in the day, I'll need at least 5 cups of coffee and a calculator before that even begins to sink it.

fillet said: Jay520 said: Ji99saw said: Time it was posted is irrelevant, it answers your question and debunks your assertion that no one other than Gilgamesh said it would sell 5 million. You can spin it as much as you want but it doesn't change the facts. Jay your better than this just admit you were wrong and move on. To be fair, I never made any assertions. I simply asked a question. True, it answers my question, but I can give my analysis, can't I? After all, you seem shocked out how people's prediction have changed so dramatically from being a "5 miller seller." I was just letting you know that predictions have been dropping gradually for the past dew weeks. Not sure what I'm "spinning" either. You said this... "Please list two people that said this game would be a "5 million seller." I'll give you one: Gilgamesh. Now, please give me just one more person who said this would be a "5 million seller."   You challenged him, he delivered and then some! Don't try and pretend that was just a simple question that you weren't sure you knew the answer to as it just makes you look silly.

I have admitted that he answered my question. I've said so here: "True, you've answered my question." Even though I didn't state it explicitly, you could say I implied that he was wrong. That would be true, but there's an extreme difference in confidence between an explicit assertion and an implicit assertion. Had I been 100% confident, I wouldn't have held back, and would have stated explicitly that he was wrong. But I wasn't completely confident; there was a degree of uncertainty.

I can honestly say that I don't feel to bad about being wrong about implicit assertions. That's the beauty of it - deep down inside, I can always tell myself that I didn't "type" anything wrong, and that at least gives me some consolation. Had I stated an explicit assertion and been proven wrong, I would have been utterly and indisputably wrong; I would have probably left this thread forever, overwhelmed with shame.

Enough with that though. Yes, my implications and inner beliefs were false. But can we not move one? Can I not reply to his original point? I wanted to still reply to his surprise of the transition of predictions. Or If proven wrong about a single implication, am I now forced to keep my mouth shut on everything else? Is that the unwritted, unsaid punishment for incorrect implications? Am I too shamed to continue speaking? Do i have to make a thread issuing a public apology to VGCHARTZ? I think not. I've admitted I was wrong, shall we carry on?

fillet said: Jay520 said: noname2200 said: Jay520 said: same could be said in the reverse. For successful new IPs, large openings are the exception, not the rule. It's more times than not a low opening (100-200k). One week of sales is really a poor indicator of long term sales for new IPs. (Speaking on PABR here. Lbpk is most likely a flop). Hope springs eternal, I suppose. I'll close this discussion by pointing out that 1) you're constructing a narrative out of a fawlsity, and more importantly 2) the vast majority of new IPs have low openings...and poor lifetime sales. Perhaps most successful new IPs did not have low openings (I don't feel like looking it up right now). But do you disagree that this has been the case for a large number of them? Specifically new IPs on the PS3 too. As for your second point...you're warranting calling it a flop because of what the majority of past games have done. If that were valid, that warrant you to call it a flop even before its released. Since the vast majority of new IPs have low sales, and PABR is a new IP, therefore it will flop. But of course that doesn't make sense. The same goes for what you're doing now, except to a lesser extreme. You're saying the vast majority of new IPs with low openings have poor lifetime sales, and PABR is a new IP with a low opening, therefore it will have poor lifetime sales, therefore it will flop. This is nearly as bad as the aforementioned example. Even if the vast majority of new IPs with low openings have poor lifetime sales, that doesn't mean its accurate to call a game a flop already. Think about this: If we called every new IP with a low opening a flop, we would have been wrong about a large portion of games. That portion would so large, that it I think it should sway the mentality on deciding when we can safely label a game as flopping. ...the false narrative continues. You write very well but since the people reading your post are in full view of the facts, unlike in a newspaper where the journalist is handing out the facts, it means that we can read this for what it is. Basically, you are creating a narrative according to values that suit your argument and not discussing the case at hand. Your second paragraph is a benchmark of your false narrative, you've used a ridiculous hypothetical dreamland set of values that make no sense, (your own words!), then attempted to pass judgement on someone's argument using those ridiculous pillars of nonsensical nonsense.....Nonsense! The trouble with the "new ip" card, is that we've heard it before and it never makes it acceptable and each case has to be judged on it's merrits. PSABR is a holiday title, it's received pretty good publicity, it's got the word "Playstation" in it, people were expecting a lot. It's not an exotic title, it should appeal to a large audience, it's not in a wierd genre. So I don't think the "new ip" card is suitable at all in this case, and even if it were. Then the sales are still bad considering it's holiday season. It's too early for paragraph 3 to make any sense at this point in the day, I'll need at least 5 cups of coffee and a calculator before that even begins to sink it.

You seem to disagree that a large portion of new IPs have low openings. Is that true? If so,then I guess I can only respond further with facts and data. Fair enough then. I shall respond in the future with data that supports my claim.

Also, I have just noticed with you're post, but I think I've been using a different definition of flop than you and noname. You seem to say its a flop because the sales are low given the circumstances and expectations. If that is the definition of a flop, then by all means, PABR is the biggest flop of the year. However, I have a different definition of flop. And if this game manages to sell over 1m, it instantly isn't a flop in my opinion, especially given the likely low budget. But I suppose we cannot agree on the best definition of "flop" though.

Its not a flop, its selling just as expected, average, theres not enough core fanbase on the PS3 to think it would do any better