UltimateGamerConsole said:
theprof00 said:
ehh, the problem is, you're attributing "flop"(ing) with releasing too many in the same year. In reality, the problem is that while those games carry a certain weight of being big releases, Motorstorm was not a poular franchise, similarly to lbp, and resistance...who's popularity in sales generally came from being early release titles for the platform and were generally not "great" games.
Killzone 3 ran into the problem of not being as good as 2, similarly with uncharted, though uncharted 3 sold well.
Not to be disparaging, but I think you're overthinking it.
TBH, the only games in 2016 that will sell really well are uncharted 4, GT (if released), and maybe last guardian. Don't expect too much from the other games. R&C might see a resurgence from the lapse between titles, but R&C has never been a huge seller. SF is a game in a declining genre. Gravity Rush.... maybe 2m if it's lucky. Last Guardian is a complete toss up. It could sell 4m, or could be another Order1886.
Playstation titles don't tend to be blockbusters. They sell relatively well, but they've never been really solid. However, third party (historically sony exclusives) like ff15 will crush. Just like mgs5 will do this year.
|
MotorStorm was big before Apocalypse, LBP 2 didn't flop and Resistance 3 was the best game in the franchise and easily one of the best shooters of last-gen, but it still flopped. Infamous 2 also flopped badly and was a huge decline over Infamous.
Killzone 3 while not up there with 2 still sold well and Uncharte 3 was a huge success and eclipsed Resistance 3, exactly what my point of "overlooking one big game over another" is.
As for 2016, I do think that No Man's Sky, Horizon and SF V will sell very well too, and eclipse games released around them unless those games are Uncharted 4 and GT 7. The rest will be no match in terms of hype, and will indeed be overlooked if released close to the others.
|
I offered an explanation, if you don't want to accept it, that's fine.
In my opinion, motorstorm was big because there was nothing else.
Resistance was big because there was nothing else. I played all the resistance games. I just felt they weren't that great. Look, resistance's main competitor was halo. I don't like Halo, Im not even someone who likes xbox. But Halo was way above resistance.
Infamous, same thing. Honestly, infamous second son is the only really engaging game in the franchise (imo), it's really well made, has a great dlc campaign, looks great, and had a lot of stuff to do. It still felt a bit repetitive with all the "shoot these cameras", "recover the x" missions, but it was eclipsed by great travel and power mechanics, and a decent storyline, as well as being a launch title.
Killzone 3 was...ok, uncharted 3 was a stellar game. Of course it would eclipse res3.
Honestly, you want to talk about killer lineups. PS4's first year was absolutely stacked, and everything saw good sales.
Like I offered in another post, ps2 in 2004 had like a dozen huge titles that all did well.
It's not about having too many games in one year. I think this year had a lot for ps4. You can't just factor in exclusives when talking about software sales, because the dilemna you're referring to is the "not enough money for everything" one.
And this year was a big one.
I bought more games this year than I have in almost any year of gaming.
tl;dr
You can't just talk about exclusives when referring to a year being "too stacked" vs any other year. You have to look at everything, because a customer isn't going to ONLY buy exclusives. They are going to buy everything that appeals to them. This year was pretty huge, when you look at the big picture.
Mgs5, bloodborne, fallout 4, persona 5, witcher 3, batman, starwars battlefront...i know i know everyone has their own taste. But dude. I'd be happy with my pick of even 4 of those games.
mgs5, bloodborne, fallout 4, persona 5...
like, wut...that's 250$ just for games. The majority of consumers only get roughly 2 (new games) per year, be it exclusive or not.