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

Forums - Sales Discussion - Global lifetime sales: Uncharted 4 PS4 vs Halo 5 Xbox1

 

Which game will sell more lifetime globally?

Uncharted 4 PS4 681 89.49%
 
Halo 5 Xbox1 80 10.51%
 
Total:761
Wright on 10 May 2016
DonFerrari said:
Wright said:

The thread is literally called: Prediction: Uncharted 4 will outsell Halo 5 lifetime.

Ok, I believe in that, but the quote you pulled was saying it could not that it was certaing. But no point discussing it over.

 

That was the whole OP first post in that thread. Blame Noble for being lazy when writing!



Around the Network
method114 on 10 May 2016
Turkish said:
method114 said:

I think this is a big part of it. I suspect the same thing would happen to Uncharted if they continued the series later on. A big part of the reason Uncharted is doing so well is because it's the last one so to speak. That makes it a bigger deal then just a normal Uncharted game. 

What does that mean, "normal Uncharted game"?

UC4 just looks like an amazing game and people are interested in it. Fact is no one wants the same games every 2 years like Halo(sales decline with every installment) but Uncharted had a 5 year hiatus and it came back improving on its formula and still looking fresh.  People would have UC fatigue too had they made UC4 right after 3, but Sony allowed ND to work on a new IP with TLOU, it brought new ideas to the table and UC4 became a better game for it.

MS could've had the same with Bungie but they blew it. MS should've given them the opportunity to make new IPs and when the time was right, bring back Halo.

Now Halo is a milk cow by a studio that isn't even Bungie, and Halo regressed to an annual franchise now. It's all about MS unable to nurture its studios and IP portfolio, really sad.

By normal Uncharted game I mean just another game in the series not something as big as the final Uncharted game by ND. I'm not saying it doesn't have anything else going for it I just think that's a big part of the reason for what I believe will be huge sales. 

I agree about MS I have no idea why people like MS insist on pressuring creative people like devs to do what they want. That is not how you get the best out of creative people who makes games and TV shows and things like that. One of the reasons Netflix is producing some of the best shows on TV right now is because the are one of the few companies willing to give people complete creative freedom to do what they want. Nothing is worse then having someone with no creative talent telling people with talent how to do their job and what changes need to be made. 



DivinePaladin on 10 May 2016
Intrinsic said:
DivinePaladin said:

AAA is a game that was traditionally maxed out at $60m with marketing included to me. Anything aiming for $100m development only, or alternatively something with a team size of over 250, is deserving of its own category so that we don't skew what was traditionally AAA. Especially since Intrinsic then said Persona 5 was AAA despite being a low budget developer, and threw it in with something like CoD. 

 

A and AA have traditionally been lower budget titles that are now being absorbed by indie budgets. The Witness is right around A/AA's boundary. 

please that doesn't even make sense. Traditionally? in relation to what? who set these traditions. Once upon a time game development maxed out $10M. And that was considered AAA. but since HD gaming came along and the quality of assets, tools and programmers becoming so much higher, that has gone up to $50M+. 

AAA has never been a numerical value but rather a subset of games that command the highest production budgets. So I have no idea what tradition has to do with anythjng. 

you are completely right about the AA/A games tho, but even compared to the last the typcal AA game can cost upwards of 5-$10M today. 

You don't just get to make up ur own category cause the team of devs that made it is bigger or a lot more money than you feel should go into making a game goes into its production.  If the norm is that most big games average $100M today then that just means that that's the new AAA. And what was triple A last gen goes down to AA and so on. 

But what you're referring to are NOT most big games. You're referring to a sect of games even bigger than previous standards allowed. If you want to put something like Persona in the same league as GTA, by all means do, but don't come to me and act like I'M the one not making sense by denoting these super-blockbusters differently because they're an entirely different beast. 

 

If you want to make the highest tier AAA, then drop down most of your AAA games to AA so that they fit correctly. Don't just make AAA stand for a range of $180m in the budget. 



You should check out my YouTube channel, The Golden Bolt!  I review all types of video games, both classic and modern, and I also give short flyover reviews of the free games each month on PlayStation Plus to tell you if they're worth downloading.  After all, the games may be free, but your time is valuable!

Sixteenvolt420 on 10 May 2016

Uncharted 4. People aren't as crazy for Halo, as they once were.



greenmedic88 on 10 May 2016

Halo 5 will have a higher attach rate than U4 due to the PS4 having a more general consumer base than the XBO.

Of course we are talking about an install base of roughly one half that of the PS4, so that's probably going to be the only favorable metric for Halo5 when comparing sales of the two games.



Around the Network
DonFerrari on 10 May 2016
Wright said:
DonFerrari said:

Ok, I believe in that, but the quote you pulled was saying it could not that it was certaing. But no point discussing it over.

That was the whole OP first post in that thread. Blame Noble for being lazy when writing!

That would be the noblest thing to do.

method114 said:
Turkish said:

What does that mean, "normal Uncharted game"?

UC4 just looks like an amazing game and people are interested in it. Fact is no one wants the same games every 2 years like Halo(sales decline with every installment) but Uncharted had a 5 year hiatus and it came back improving on its formula and still looking fresh.  People would have UC fatigue too had they made UC4 right after 3, but Sony allowed ND to work on a new IP with TLOU, it brought new ideas to the table and UC4 became a better game for it.

MS could've had the same with Bungie but they blew it. MS should've given them the opportunity to make new IPs and when the time was right, bring back Halo.

Now Halo is a milk cow by a studio that isn't even Bungie, and Halo regressed to an annual franchise now. It's all about MS unable to nurture its studios and IP portfolio, really sad.

By normal Uncharted game I mean just another game in the series not something as big as the final Uncharted game by ND. I'm not saying it doesn't have anything else going for it I just think that's a big part of the reason for what I believe will be huge sales. 

I agree about MS I have no idea why people like MS insist on pressuring creative people like devs to do what they want. That is not how you get the best out of creative people who makes games and TV shows and things like that. One of the reasons Netflix is producing some of the best shows on TV right now is because the are one of the few companies willing to give people complete creative freedom to do what they want. Nothing is worse then having someone with no creative talent telling people with talent how to do their job and what changes need to be made. 

Agree with you on almost everything. But you can't just set them totally free and unchecked. They need direction and limitations planned by people that understand that (budgeting and project management) and feedback from consumer (marketing and whatnot), so yes they need a lot of freedom, but they also need good direction (that of course can't be obnoxious or suffocating).

DivinePaladin said:
Intrinsic said:

please that doesn't even make sense. Traditionally? in relation to what? who set these traditions. Once upon a time game development maxed out $10M. And that was considered AAA. but since HD gaming came along and the quality of assets, tools and programmers becoming so much higher, that has gone up to $50M+. 

AAA has never been a numerical value but rather a subset of games that command the highest production budgets. So I have no idea what tradition has to do with anythjng. 

you are completely right about the AA/A games tho, but even compared to the last the typcal AA game can cost upwards of 5-$10M today. 

You don't just get to make up ur own category cause the team of devs that made it is bigger or a lot more money than you feel should go into making a game goes into its production.  If the norm is that most big games average $100M today then that just means that that's the new AAA. And what was triple A last gen goes down to AA and so on. 

But what you're referring to are NOT most big games. You're referring to a sect of games even bigger than previous standards allowed. If you want to put something like Persona in the same league as GTA, by all means do, but don't come to me and act like I'M the one not making sense by denoting these super-blockbusters differently because they're an entirely different beast. 

If you want to make the highest tier AAA, then drop down most of your AAA games to AA so that they fit correctly. Don't just make AAA stand for a range of $180m in the budget. 

The dev may say they are doing AAA or you may agree with it. It won't make it go there. Final Fantasy and Zelda are on the very few AAA JRPG (that aren't even totally JRPG nowadays) on the market, most would hover between A (that needs couple 100k or even less to profit) or AA (would say is perhaps Persona case).

You are the one pushing personal ranges not the other side.

BraLoD said:
DonFerrari said:

So you are just creating categories to please your own standards? Ok, no point in discussing that now. It would be ridiculous to have AAAA as AAA, AAA as what was before B and A/AA for Indie.

Ok, I believe in that, but the quote you pulled was saying it could not that it was certaing. But no point discussing it over.

Your thoughs on AAA and AA I totally agree. But nowadays for me B and C are basically good Indie and Poor Indie... with A being very good Indie or PSN titels of stablished devs. And I agree the guy is crazy.

I would suck you hard... but please tell me why LoD is so fantastic, I may try it someday.

'cause gameplay, 'cause story, 'cause soundtrack, 'cause dragoons, 'cause Rose, 'cause Lavitz, 'cause Shana...

Well... that didn't make me very interested, sorry dragons are good, but just the word don't make me crazy)



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari on 10 May 2016
greenmedic88 said:
Halo 5 will have a higher attach rate than U4 due to the PS4 having a more general consumer base than the XBO.

Of course we are talking about an install base of roughly one half that of the PS4, so that's probably going to be the only favorable metric for Halo5 when comparing sales of the two games.

Looking at H5 being less than 4M at the moment and some expecting UC4 to go up to 10M, it isn't totally impossible that it will be over 2:1 UC4:H5 and that would make it have similar or bigger attach rate at the time of release install base... at the end of the generation depending on how much PS4 accelerate or X1 lose steam it could make it very hard to keep similar attach rates (like PS4> 3:1 X1)



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari on 10 May 2016
BraLoD said:
DonFerrari said:

That would be the noblest thing to do.

Agree with you on almost everything. But you can't just set them totally free and unchecked. They need direction and limitations planned by people that understand that (budgeting and project management) and feedback from consumer (marketing and whatnot), so yes they need a lot of freedom, but they also need good direction (that of course can't be obnoxious or suffocating).

The dev may say they are doing AAA or you may agree with it. It won't make it go there. Final Fantasy and Zelda are on the very few AAA JRPG (that aren't even totally JRPG nowadays) on the market, most would hover between A (that needs couple 100k or even less to profit) or AA (would say is perhaps Persona case).

You are the one pushing personal ranges not the other side.

Well... that didn't make me very interested, sorry dragons are good, but just the word don't make me crazy)

Dragoons, it has dragons as well, but I said dragoons

I saw and assumed it was a typo. I don't know who he is.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari on 10 May 2016
BraLoD said:
DonFerrari said:

I saw and assumed it was a typo. I don't know who he is.

Dragoons are basically Dragon Knights.
Armored humans that rule over dragons spirits.

Ok, so they use the same origin of real Dragoons on real life... interesting to be a Dragon's Dragoon



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Intrinsic on 10 May 2016
DivinePaladin said:

But what you're referring to are NOT most big games. You're referring to a sect of games even bigger than previous standards allowed. If you want to put something like Persona in the same league as GTA, by all means do, but don't come to me and act like I'M the one not making sense by denoting these super-blockbusters differently because they're an entirely different beast. 

 

If you want to make the highest tier AAA, then drop down most of your AAA games to AA so that they fit correctly. Don't just make AAA stand for a range of $180m in the budget. 

Tripple A is basically top tier. And like it or not. that's a range. The reason games like GTA, COD...etc cost so much is how much if the budget goes into marketing. Usually more money than actually goes into making the game. But they still cost about the same as any current AAA game costs to make right now. 

Even if you want to drop some of those games down to AA ratings, it's still usually only the big publishers that can afford to spend $50-80M on a game. 

Anyways. let's just agree to disagree. Cause I don't see the point in debating over this when I think the classification is already simple. And all I was even saying still stands regardless of how we slice it. Not a lot of games in any of these classes come to Nintendo consoles each year.