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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Prediction: Horizon Zero Dawn > Zelda BoTW

Slade6alpha said:
Graphics: Horizon > Zelda
Sales: IF PS4 vs. Wii U--> Horizon > Zelda
If PS4 vs. NX/Wii U--> Zelda > Horizon
Meta: Zelda > Horizon
Art style: Subjective

Hmm.... interesting 2015 prediction. 

Played both, Horizon I liked better overall. 




Undisputed Gamer BAY BAY 

Around the Network

The "LoZ is better because it makes a lot more money" argument doesn't work quite as well as people think. That's because the goal of each company is different.

Nintendo has a bit of a walled garden. Their software marketplace is much less crowded, perhaps by design. Nintendo's goal is to sell Nintendo software. That's how they make their money. They keep high margins and seek more profit per individual customer. They are willing to accept less overall users in exchange. This philosophy goes all the way back to the NES days, when they'd short production of third-party games so they wouldn't compete with their own titles.

Sony's goal is different. They want volume. Lower margins and even isolated losses are fine if they can bring in more revenue. That allows them to tap revenue streams from subscriptions, services, and royalties. They target a broad range of consumers, which is why they encourage a crowded marketplace even if it impacts the sales of their own games. They've said before that many first-party titles don't bring in much profit individually. They're willing to exchange that for a more attractive ecosystem. They care about the quality of their first-party titles, obviously, but they're willing to leverage their properties for the overall goal. It's generally a balanced approach.

Microsoft is essentially the opposite of Nintendo. They don't really care about gaming hardware or even about video-games at all. That's just a means to an end. That's why they've found themselves in such a hole from a first-party standpoint, actually, because they thought they were in a position where they could coast on what they already had. All they really care about are subscriptions and services. They'll gladly cut hardware margins down to nothing for the sake of volume. Hardware margins are pocket change to them, anyway, in financial terms. They want that long-term human-revenue-stream that's tethered to their ecosystem.

Different companies use different methods to achieve different goals. Amazon, for instance, was once scorned for focusing on revenue over margins but it kind of worked out okay for them in the end. Apple, on the other hand, puts margins above all else and it worked out pretty damn well for them, too. Comparing individual aspects of different companies won't really tell you much without considering the larger picture.

Last edited by pokoko - on 26 August 2018

BotW has clearly outpaced HZD both commercially and critically.

However, certain factors must be looked at:

- HZD had a pricecut.
- HZD is a new IP.
- BotW is a well known IP.
- Launch title on a new console.
- Both released almost at the same time, maybe to HZD's disadvantage.
- Lowering of the price of the PS4 temp before the Switch launch.
- The PS4 having a big installbase

Looking at all these factors, I think both can pretty put on a pretty even and fair level.



pokoko said:

The "LoZ is better because it makes a lot more money" argument doesn't work quite as well as people think. That's because the goal of each company is different.

Nintendo has a bit of a walled garden. Their software marketplace is much less crowded, perhaps by design. Nintendo's goal is to sell Nintendo software. That's how they make their money. They keep high margins and seek more profit per individual customer. They are willing to accept less overall users in exchange. This philosophy goes all the way back to the NES days, when they'd short production of third-party games so they wouldn't compete with their own titles.

Sony's goal is different. They want volume. Lower margins and even isolated losses are fine if they can bring in more revenue. That allows them to tap revenue streams from subscriptions, services, and royalties. They target a broad range of consumers, which is why they encourage a crowded marketplace even if it impacts the sales of their own games. They've said before that many first-party titles don't bring in much profit individually. They're willing to exchange that for a more attractive ecosystem. They care about the quality of their first-party titles, obviously, but they're willing to leverage their properties for the overall goal. It's generally a balanced approach.

Microsoft is essentially the opposite of Nintendo. They don't really care about gaming hardware or even about video-games at all. That's just a means to an end. That's why they've found themselves in such a hole from a first-party standpoint, actually, because they thought they were in a position where they could coast on what they already had. All they really care about are subscriptions and services. They'll gladly cut hardware margins down to nothing for the sake of volume. Hardware margins are pocket change to them, anyway, in financial terms. They want that long-term human-revenue-stream that's tethered to their ecosystem.

Different companies use different methods to achieve different goals. Amazon, for instance, was once scorned for focusing on revenue over margins but it kind of worked out okay for them in the end. Apple, on the other hand, puts margins above all else and it worked out pretty damn well for them, too. Comparing individual aspects of different companies won't really tell you much without considering the larger picture.

All well and good about companies operating differently but that doesn't really dispute their point when comparing the two game's performance as it can be argued that Nintendo themselves are moving into the whole subscription side of things and all and will eventually do part of what Sony does while having their own approach and so on. That argument is a separate thing all together that doesn't really concern the direct comparison of the two games here.



I dont see how you can compare their performances fairly. HZD starred a unsexualized female protagonist, it was never going to sell as much as LOZ regardless of the install base. The idea that it would was laughable to begin with. If HZD starred nathan drake or some other male character we could make a fair comparison.



Around the Network
contestgamer said:
I dont see how you can compare their performances fairly. HZD starred a unsexualized female protagonist, it was never going to sell as much as LOZ regardless of the install base. The idea that it would was laughable to begin with. If HZD starred nathan drake or some other male character we could make a fair comparison.

What on earth does the gender have to do with it? Its not like Link is some macho super soldier!



Nogamez said:
contestgamer said:
I dont see how you can compare their performances fairly. HZD starred a unsexualized female protagonist, it was never going to sell as much as LOZ regardless of the install base. The idea that it would was laughable to begin with. If HZD starred nathan drake or some other male character we could make a fair comparison.

What on earth does the gender have to do with it? Its not like Link is some macho super soldier!

Nothing. Horizon sold well but some posters as the one you are quoting cannot accept that Zelda sold more and are looking for excuses.

 

No one gets anything from one selling more than than the other, outside of a board full of comments.



Proud to be the first cool Nintendo fan ever

Number ONE Zelda fan in the Universe

DKCTF didn't move consoles

Prediction: No Zelda HD for Wii U, quietly moved to the succesor

Predictions for Nintendo NX and Mobile


contestgamer said:
I dont see how you can compare their performances fairly. HZD starred a unsexualized female protagonist, it was never going to sell as much as LOZ regardless of the install base. The idea that it would was laughable to begin with. If HZD starred nathan drake or some other male character we could make a fair comparison.

You're joking, right?



Nogamez said:
contestgamer said:
I dont see how you can compare their performances fairly. HZD starred a unsexualized female protagonist, it was never going to sell as much as LOZ regardless of the install base. The idea that it would was laughable to begin with. If HZD starred nathan drake or some other male character we could make a fair comparison.

What on earth does the gender have to do with it? Its not like Link is some macho super soldier!

Well a buddys cousin of mine wouldn't buy HZD, because it had a female protagonist that he said "was not hot to look at" and he called it "g**" So I'm assuming it had some effect on sales.

 

 

User moderated - Bristow9091

Last edited by Bristow9091 - on 26 August 2018

Seems like this is just a redundant topic now, and with other Mods who agree, this was bumped enough and the OP is long gone.