pezus said:
Sleeping Dogs did better than they expected, didn't it? Plus, they picked up the game when it was almost completed. Doubt it cost them much |
In November they said that the sales of Sleeping dogs were lower than expected.
pezus said:
Sleeping Dogs did better than they expected, didn't it? Plus, they picked up the game when it was almost completed. Doubt it cost them much |
In November they said that the sales of Sleeping dogs were lower than expected.
| Player2 said: Greed. Dragon Quest IX is the best selling game of the franchise but they had to turn X into an MMO in an attempt to earn even more $$$. I blame Sleeping Dogs too for their financial results. |
nonsense, Sleeping dogs sold more than a million, it made profit to them with the legs it had.
FFXIV:ARR is the probable reason for this, as it consumed most of the companies resources. DQX beeing the issue i seriously doubt. It sold really well for an MMO, i would just like to know how the retention was in subscribers. Also, the Wii U is a much better platform for it due to the touch screen doubling as a keyboard and mic.
This actually makes me happy, as I don't want FF or DQ to go MMO. I don't want to pay any monthly subscription. I just want to buy a game and play it.
I really can't get it why it is so hard for people in SE to understand what their fans want. We want good old-fashioned RPGs from FF and DQ series. We want FFVII and DQ VIII remakes on the Vita. We want Type-0 in the West. It's not rocket science!
Wii U is a GCN 2 - I called it months before the release!
My Vita to-buy list: The Walking Dead, Persona 4 Golden, Need for Speed: Most Wanted, TearAway, Ys: Memories of Celceta, Muramasa: The Demon Blade, History: Legends of War, FIFA 13, Final Fantasy HD X, X-2, Worms Revolution Extreme, The Amazing Spiderman, Batman: Arkham Origins Blackgate - too many no-gaemz :/
My consoles: PS2 Slim, PS3 Slim 320 GB, PSV 32 GB, Wii, DSi.
that is why you don't do 3rd party exclusives for Nintendo anymore. Got that SE?
The cash paid at Nintendo initially is nice, but it pales in comparison of the quantity of money they could get if gone multiplatform. That is why there are no longer 3rd party exclusives (with the exception with Versus XIII so far).
The whole MSN thing is horribly shady. Then again, if it's causing SE financial problems, that's not a good thing.
Hardly surprising, releasing on a dead console way too late.
Should have been a multiplat. PSP, 3DS or PS3 would have been great for it. That said, the Wii U version may do alright. Wouldnt be surprised to see that tank either though.
![]()
Well considering they announced it a MMORPG on a system not known for its online gameplay and that there would be a version on the Wii U which has yet to materialize, can you blame anyone for bad sales but themselves?
They probably should have scrapped the Wii version being a MMORPG and made it a quick prelude to the "real" DQX on the Wii U. Given the five races, they could have easily just have made it a short cheap single player DQ spin off/intro game to the mechanics the MMORPG would have and set up how the main game on the Wii U would play. Instead they screw over DQ fans by having it on both Wii and Wii U. Early adopters get a so-so RPG and the Wii U adopters get a port of a game that isn't really graphically doing anything for their system and would have been better suited to be designed for it from the jump.
And their is a strong possibility that they only made it a MMORPG because they messed up FFXIV and now want another revenue stream for online functions. All the good things they did with DQIX went out the window and Square Enix put a black mark on their premier Japanese franchise, they have been messing up for a minute.
Nem said:
FFXIV:ARR is the probable reason for this, as it consumed most of the companies resources. DQX beeing the issue i seriously doubt. It sold really well for an MMO, i would just like to know how the retention was in subscribers. Also, the Wii U is a much better platform for it due to the touch screen doubling as a keyboard and mic. |
http://www.vgchartz.com/article/250528/square-enix-reports-losses-of-68m-sleeping-dogs-ships-15m-units/
"Squre Enix before it released its report had warned about lower than expected sales for Sleeping Dogs"
This was late November and the Christmas sales boost was pretty much expected.
| Heavenly_King said: that is why you don't do 3rd party exclusives for Nintendo anymore. Got that SE? The cash paid at Nintendo initially is nice, but it pales in comparison of the quantity of money they could get if gone multiplatform. That is why there are no longer 3rd party exclusives (with the exception with Versus XIII so far). |
No.. this is why you don't make games your target audience doesn't want in the first place.
Player2 said:
http://www.vgchartz.com/article/250528/square-enix-reports-losses-of-68m-sleeping-dogs-ships-15m-units/ "Squre Enix before it released its report had warned about lower than expected sales for Sleeping Dogs" This was late November and the Christmas sales boost was pretty much expected. |
There was a statement after that that cleared up what they meant with that one. They had exagerated predictions for the game but the game did sell well and made profit for them. Thats why a sequal is rumored to be in development. And cmon... the game sold 1.4million on physical alone and square didnt have to pay for most of the development. I'm pretty sure they made good profit there.
"Contrary to what some people might believe, United Front Games' Sleeping Dogs did not suffer from poor sales, but was rather a victim of "unreasonable sales expectations."