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

Forums - Sony - Why PSABR, Twisted Metal and Starhawk flopped

Horrorfest on 09 February 2013
Kresnik said:
Horrorfest said:

Notice how Warhawk and MAG are online only? It's what Starhawk should have been. The campaign is what killed it. If the campaign were say any good at all (there is no denying it sucks) then it would have a much better chance. The casual fans don't matter for Twisted Metal it's about the hardcore TM fans and all of them are well aware past games had a dozen or so characters. It was a huge step down. Easilly the games biggest problem.


Still failing to see your point here really.

If the Twisted Metal hardcore fans were all it was supposed to appeal to, then how much were you expecting it to sell?  The last TM game sold 750k, this one sold 600k, will probably finish around 650k lifetime.  A drop, certainly, but the fanbase for this series just has never been that big.  There are many reasons why it did poorly, but "lack of characters" is a negligable to insignificant one that I'm afraid we're just going to have to disagree on.

The point about MAG & Warhawk was that if people were willing to pay $60 for a multi-player only game, there is no reason they'd be averse to paying the same for a multi-player game with a single-player tutorial.  Because that's pretty much what the single-player was.  I don't think it was bad, but it was there for a specific purpose - to get you used to the build & battle system for when you got dropped into the multi-player, which it did the job for.  Again, I think if you watch reviews, that's pretty much what comes across - IGN recommend the game for the multi-player and say that the single-player is just a tutorial.  Which is where marketing comes in.  There was none.

I see the point you're trying to make, but I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.  Many factors played into Twisted Metal's demise, but a complete and utter failure to market Starhawk is absolutely the single biggest reason it failed, in my opinion.

The point is Starhawk would be far more successful as MP only. A campaign is a campaign regardless if it's actually a demo. Who the hell is going to care about this campaign when we can look elsewhere to play something that isn't one big demo? Better yet who the hell period cares about it? No one, it does the game a disservice. The campaign was marketed as just that even though it's just one big demo. The director even said it wouldn't be like that and it is. Big difference between an incomplete package and a complete multiplayer package. The game isn't worth more than $20 because the campaign isn't worth playing at all. That is the point.

It should have been MP only and I can promise you it would have done much better if it was. But it doesn't matter now because the series is dead and frankfully the sales are just about right. The campaign is awful and it was supposed to be a complete package with at least a decent campaign. Either their shouldn't have been a campaign from the start and Lightbox could have put all that "effort" into making the MP bigger which is the best bet or the campaign should have been solid actually making this a complete package justified for a retail release.



Around the Network
AlphaCielago on 09 February 2013

The reason i think that those games flopped is because there was no mass appeal to those games and it was Sony's fault to not push them to the public by advertising them better.



Check out my Upcoming Wii U Games 2014 Thread

3DS Friend Code: 4553 - 9954 - 4854. Name - David

JWeinCom on 09 February 2013
naruball said:
JWeinCom said:
JoeTheBro said:
EspadaGrim said:
JoeTheBro said:
EspadaGrim said:
You forgot LBPK.


If you played LBPK you'd know it's actually really good.


We are talking about game sales

This thread is saying these games sold poorly because they were bad. LBPK sold poorly for different reasons.

 

Also to everyone else I'm pointing out that PSASBR as a contradiction to the claim that it's a bad game and deserved these sales.

No, it's still a mediocre game and deserves those sales.  The fact that it won an award from DICE doesn't negate the fact that every other game nominated had a higher aggregate review score.  It doesn't change the fact that the game is so barebones that Sony should really be sort of embarassed about releasing it in that state.  It doesn't change the fact that the game is poorly balanced or that the game's developers were clearly confused about what type of game they were making.  It doesn't change the fact that I've played the game and it's really not that good.

Game sold what it should.


Man, it seems like internet people sure use the word "fact" the way I use the phrase "in my opinion".

It is not a FACT that PSASBR was/is a bad game nor that it deserves its less than great sales.

As a matter of FACT, the game received overall good reviews. Some bad, some good, some great, but the general consensus was that it was a good game, though with some issues. Many reviewers scored it down because of the ugly menus (fair point, but doesn't affect its gameplay) and for being a Smash "rip-off". The gameplay was considered actually very good. 

Now, in my opinion, the game is amazing. It deserves a 9 for being incredibly fun to play. If I were to review it, I'd give it an 8 though. Say whatever you want. The game was not bad. Sales do not always reflect quality, as evident by many superb games that flopped and many extremely terrible games (and by terrible I mean games that both consumers and critics hated) that sold well.

Even if you personally hate Uncharted 2 or Halo 3, it does not mean you should state as a fact that they are bad games. They may be good games, but not your cup of tea.

Actually, everything I said was a fact.  Reread my post.

Did the game get a lower average review score than every other game nominated?  Yes?  FACT

Is the game barebones with half done menus, two short single player game modes, and lacking even a basic feature like 1v1 online play?  Yeah?  Fact.

Are two characters (Raiden and Kratos) clearly and completely unbalanced with the rest of the cast?  The startup and range on Kratos' standing square is something that anyone who's ever played a fighting game can clearly see is broken, and Raiden is so damn agile that it's ridiculous.  It's like playing as a Marvel vs Capcom 3 character in Street Fighter 4.  Fact.

You could argue about whether my last point, but I think it's pretty clear that the developers had no idea what experience they were trying to make.  I mean, did they seriously put long combos dial a combos in a 4 player brawler?  That's just silly.  Did they introduce a rather complex system of kills in a party game?  Yeesh.  Maybe they could have made PSASBR into a good hardcore fighter, and maybe it could have been a good party game, but the developers had no idea which they wanted to make. 

All that I said was pretty much fact.  If you like the game, then that's good for you.  If you don't expect more than two single player modes out of a 60 dollar game, great.  If you don't expect things like worthwhile unlockables, rock on.  If you don't want things like online rankings for anything other than clusterfuck free for all mode, that's fine.  If you don't expect a modern online fighter to enable players to fight random people 1 v 1, that's your call too.  If you don't expect any form or production values, cool.  If you're ok with a mishmash of mechanics cribbed from other fighting games, awesome.  There's no accounting for taste, but there are plenty of clear and objective flaws



Marks on 09 February 2013

Yeah I agree with PSASBR. Its unlikely I would have bought it anyways since I'm not huge into fighting games like Smash Brothers anyways...but the fact it's missing Crash Bandicoot and other big names certainly didn't make me feel bad about missing this game.



naruball on 09 February 2013
JWeinCom said:
naruball said:
JWeinCom said:
JoeTheBro said:
EspadaGrim said:
JoeTheBro said:
EspadaGrim said:
You forgot LBPK.


If you played LBPK you'd know it's actually really good.


We are talking about game sales

This thread is saying these games sold poorly because they were bad. LBPK sold poorly for different reasons.

 

Also to everyone else I'm pointing out that PSASBR as a contradiction to the claim that it's a bad game and deserved these sales.

No, it's still a mediocre game and deserves those sales.  The fact that it won an award from DICE doesn't negate the fact that every other game nominated had a higher aggregate review score.  It doesn't change the fact that the game is so barebones that Sony should really be sort of embarassed about releasing it in that state.  It doesn't change the fact that the game is poorly balanced or that the game's developers were clearly confused about what type of game they were making.  It doesn't change the fact that I've played the game and it's really not that good.

Game sold what it should.


Man, it seems like internet people sure use the word "fact" the way I use the phrase "in my opinion".

It is not a FACT that PSASBR was/is a bad game nor that it deserves its less than great sales.

As a matter of FACT, the game received overall good reviews. Some bad, some good, some great, but the general consensus was that it was a good game, though with some issues. Many reviewers scored it down because of the ugly menus (fair point, but doesn't affect its gameplay) and for being a Smash "rip-off". The gameplay was considered actually very good. 

Now, in my opinion, the game is amazing. It deserves a 9 for being incredibly fun to play. If I were to review it, I'd give it an 8 though. Say whatever you want. The game was not bad. Sales do not always reflect quality, as evident by many superb games that flopped and many extremely terrible games (and by terrible I mean games that both consumers and critics hated) that sold well.

Even if you personally hate Uncharted 2 or Halo 3, it does not mean you should state as a fact that they are bad games. They may be good games, but not your cup of tea.

Actually, everything I said was a fact.  Reread my post.

Did the game get a lower average review score than every other game nominated?  Yes?  FACT

Is the game barebones with half done menus, two short single player game modes, and lacking even a basic feature like 1v1 online play?  Yeah?  Fact.

Are two characters (Raiden and Kratos) clearly and completely unbalanced with the rest of the cast?  The startup and range on Kratos' standing square is something that anyone who's ever played a fighting game can clearly see is broken, and Raiden is so damn agile that it's ridiculous.  It's like playing as a Marvel vs Capcom 3 character in Street Fighter 4.  Fact.

You could argue about whether my last point, but I think it's pretty clear that the developers had no idea what experience they were trying to make.  I mean, did they seriously put long combos dial a combos in a 4 player brawler?  That's just silly.  Did they introduce a rather complex system of kills in a party game?  Yeesh.  Maybe they could have made PSASBR into a good hardcore fighter, and maybe it could have been a good party game, but the developers had no idea which they wanted to make. 

All that I said was pretty much fact.  If you like the game, then that's good for you.  If you don't expect more than two single player modes out of a 60 dollar game, great.  If you don't expect things like worthwhile unlockables, rock on.  If you don't want things like online rankings for anything other than clusterfuck free for all mode, that's fine.  If you don't expect a modern online fighter to enable players to fight random people 1 v 1, that's your call too.  If you don't expect any form or production values, cool.  If you're ok with a mishmash of mechanics cribbed from other fighting games, awesome.  There's no accounting for taste, but there are plenty of clear and objective flaws

Hm let's see:

-No, it's still a mediocre game and deserves those sales. OPINION

-The fact that it won an award from DICE doesn't negate the fact that every other game nominated had a higher aggregate review score. FACT

-It doesn't change the fact that the game is so barebones that Sony should really be sort of embarassed about releasing it in that state. OPINION

-It doesn't change the fact that the game is poorly balanced or that the game's developers were clearly confused about what type of game they were making. OPINION

-It doesn't change the fact that I've played the game and it's really not that good. IN YOUR OPINION

-Game sold what it should. OPINION

Define "everything"



Around the Network
JWeinCom on 09 February 2013
naruball said:
JWeinCom said:
naruball said:
JWeinCom said:
JoeTheBro said:
EspadaGrim said:
JoeTheBro said:
EspadaGrim said:
You forgot LBPK.


If you played LBPK you'd know it's actually really good.


We are talking about game sales

This thread is saying these games sold poorly because they were bad. LBPK sold poorly for different reasons.

 

Also to everyone else I'm pointing out that PSASBR as a contradiction to the claim that it's a bad game and deserved these sales.

No, it's still a mediocre game and deserves those sales.  The fact that it won an award from DICE doesn't negate the fact that every other game nominated had a higher aggregate review score.  It doesn't change the fact that the game is so barebones that Sony should really be sort of embarassed about releasing it in that state.  It doesn't change the fact that the game is poorly balanced or that the game's developers were clearly confused about what type of game they were making.  It doesn't change the fact that I've played the game and it's really not that good.

Game sold what it should.


Man, it seems like internet people sure use the word "fact" the way I use the phrase "in my opinion".

It is not a FACT that PSASBR was/is a bad game nor that it deserves its less than great sales.

As a matter of FACT, the game received overall good reviews. Some bad, some good, some great, but the general consensus was that it was a good game, though with some issues. Many reviewers scored it down because of the ugly menus (fair point, but doesn't affect its gameplay) and for being a Smash "rip-off". The gameplay was considered actually very good. 

Now, in my opinion, the game is amazing. It deserves a 9 for being incredibly fun to play. If I were to review it, I'd give it an 8 though. Say whatever you want. The game was not bad. Sales do not always reflect quality, as evident by many superb games that flopped and many extremely terrible games (and by terrible I mean games that both consumers and critics hated) that sold well.

Even if you personally hate Uncharted 2 or Halo 3, it does not mean you should state as a fact that they are bad games. They may be good games, but not your cup of tea.

Actually, everything I said was a fact.  Reread my post.

Did the game get a lower average review score than every other game nominated?  Yes?  FACT

Is the game barebones with half done menus, two short single player game modes, and lacking even a basic feature like 1v1 online play?  Yeah?  Fact.

Are two characters (Raiden and Kratos) clearly and completely unbalanced with the rest of the cast?  The startup and range on Kratos' standing square is something that anyone who's ever played a fighting game can clearly see is broken, and Raiden is so damn agile that it's ridiculous.  It's like playing as a Marvel vs Capcom 3 character in Street Fighter 4.  Fact.

You could argue about whether my last point, but I think it's pretty clear that the developers had no idea what experience they were trying to make.  I mean, did they seriously put long combos dial a combos in a 4 player brawler?  That's just silly.  Did they introduce a rather complex system of kills in a party game?  Yeesh.  Maybe they could have made PSASBR into a good hardcore fighter, and maybe it could have been a good party game, but the developers had no idea which they wanted to make. 

All that I said was pretty much fact.  If you like the game, then that's good for you.  If you don't expect more than two single player modes out of a 60 dollar game, great.  If you don't expect things like worthwhile unlockables, rock on.  If you don't want things like online rankings for anything other than clusterfuck free for all mode, that's fine.  If you don't expect a modern online fighter to enable players to fight random people 1 v 1, that's your call too.  If you don't expect any form or production values, cool.  If you're ok with a mishmash of mechanics cribbed from other fighting games, awesome.  There's no accounting for taste, but there are plenty of clear and objective flaws

Hm let's see:

-No, it's still a mediocre game and deserves those sales. OPINION

-The fact that it won an award from DICE doesn't negate the fact that every other game nominated had a higher aggregate review score. FACT

-It doesn't change the fact that the game is so barebones that Sony should really be sort of embarassed about releasing it in that state. OPINION

-It doesn't change the fact that the game is poorly balanced or that the game's developers were clearly confused about what type of game they were making. OPINION

-It doesn't change the fact that I've played the game and it's really not that good. IN YOUR OPINION

-Game sold what it should. OPINION

Define "everything"


Lol. What I meant was that everything I stated as fact in my original post was indeed a fact.  Game is barebones, game is unbalanced.  But, feel free to argue over semantics cause you can't actually defend the product.  ^_^



naruball on 09 February 2013
JWeinCom said:


Lol. What I meant was that everything I stated as fact in my original post was indeed a fact.  Game is barebones, game is unbalanced.  But, feel free to argue over semantics cause you can't actually defend the product.  ^_^


There is no need to defend the product. Some people like it and some don't. It's all a matter of opinion. I had fun playing and apparently so did the reviewers who said that the gameplay was good. Feel free to believe whatever you want. Just don't call it a fact.



teigaga on 09 February 2013
KylieDog said:
teigaga said:
KylieDog said:
osed125 said:
JoeTheBro said:
PSASBR was amazing and has sold over half a million copies. Nuff said.

You know 500k units is pretty low for a AAA game right?


It isn't a AAA game.


Ir may not be triple AAA in terms of its budget (judging by its graphics+content), but it was undeniably Sony flaship title for the fall on PS3. This means they were expecting this to push hardware and to easily pass 1m within its 1s month. They probably expected around 1m during launch week, I remember they kept begging hwo this game was for everyone. Successfull games of its kind either have explosive holdiay sales or average start yet extremely long legs. 

Theres a reason why Sony seperated with Superbot and Superbot suffered "significant" Layoffs. The game flopped, both in expectation and probably in recouping its cost+marketing.


Why would Sony stay with Superbot if all they are doing is a few characters?  Don't need an entire studio for that.

...and 1m for a fighter launch week?  You're not being remotely realistic.  Even the biggest fighters barely get half that.  I already listed 2012s fighter sales, PSASBR did fine.

You're ignoring the nature of this game. Its not marketed as a traditional fighting game and again sony repeately positioned it the tent pole release, a game at the forefront of their desire to break into the living room as a fun for all title. For this reason, comparing it to other traditional 1vs1 fighters carries no value what so ever. Supersmash was definitely its inspiration and I'm sure they expected to replicate a faire portion of its success .Of course if this was actually conidered a success sony would not have cut tehir ties with  Superbot becuase not only would they be creating character DLC, but also a nextgen sequel. If Sony knew it would sell only 500k in 3 months there is zero chance they would have green lit the game.

Again I put emphasis on the fact that it was their main holiday release. Any such title that is a full priced game and fills that crucial spot in a systems line up is a flop if its struggles to pass 500 (apart from Launch titles). When was the last time Nintendo, Microsoft or even sony had their main holiday release sell as poorly?



DigitalDevilSummoner on 09 February 2013
Kresnik said:
KylieDog said:

The gameplay of PSASBR is solid.

Listing last years fighters....

570k - SFxT PS3
520k - SCV PS3
440k - SCV 360
430k - TTT2 PS3
410k - PSASBR PS3
340k - P4A PS3
300k - SFxT 360
290k - MK Vita
280k - DOA5 PS3
180k - TTT2 360
120k - PSASBR Vita
110k - DOA5 360
80k - P4A 360
70k - SFxT Vita
50k - TTT2 WiiU


...but only PSASBR is a flop? Even though most of the others have had a lot longer time to sell. Or maybe the fighting genre isn't very big and also suffers from too many titles?


Quoting for exposure.


Tecmo Koei reported sales numbers for Dead or Alive 5 in their latest financial briefing. The fighting game sold 580,000 units worldwide and contributed to the consumer game division’s 869 million ($10.9 million) operating profit. (Siliconera)



richardhutnik on 09 February 2013
enditall727 said:
richardhutnik said:
Horrorfest said:

Maybe Sony did limit the potential of all these games during development but they sure did the best they can to sell these games with all of their major flaws. 

No, don't you get it?  It is ALWAYS Sony's marketing to blame.  EVERY SINGLE not expected epic sales comes with lines of posts and threads on how Sony sucks at marketing.  Yes, the company that gave the world Kevin Butler, the most memorable marketing character this generation, apparently can't market games to save their lives, so it has to be marketing.  Or, so it goes.


give me an example

 

and Kevin Butler's last commercial was with Resistance 3

 

so he obviously didn't do commercials for Starhawk, Twisted Metal LBPK and Battle Royale

 

The R3 commercial was also his worst commercial in my opinion with that LLP thing

 

he was also only actively making commercials with Sony for 2 years(end of 09 to the end of 2011)

 

 

EVERY SINGLE not expected epic sales comes with lines of posts and threads on how Sony sucks at marketing <-- give me an example of what you are trying to imply with this though

I hope you understand my engaging in over the top sarcasm to try to make a point here.  EVERY SINGLE one doesn't face this.  But, there is a general pattern that happens on here (and I am sure other videogame forums) with Sony exclusives put out.  First, the title gets hyped up to no end (Killzone 2 was on this).  From this comes expected HUGE sales.  The sales don't come, so then things crash and burn and Sony is said to suck at marketing.  That is the pattern I touched on.  There is also the "in retrospect the title sucked', which is what happened to Resistance 2 actually.  Almost never is seen that a title is niche, and wouldn't generate a lot of sales.  It is usually Sony markets badly, or the title sucked.  Ideas than inFamous isn't a title that gets people to buy a console for it alone, and thus get huge sales, doesn't come up.