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

Forums - Sales Discussion - Third-Person Shooters Sales Analysis - How is the genre trending based on major franchises sales

atma998 on 20 July 2017
chakkra said:
atma998 said:

Then, prove me wrong. Prove me that the FPS, TPS or the whole shooter genre is healthy in comparison to what it did like 5 or 10 years ago. Use the numbers you want, spin them in the way you want. I can't wait to hear this.

Nahh..  After reading many of the responses you have given to others in this thread, I got to the conclusion that any discussion with you is just a waste of time.

Yes it is indeed a waste of time to post shitty comments instead of constructive ones. Anyway it's not like I was expecting you to prove me wong, I knew from the beginning that whatever the numbers you decide to pick you just can't conclude that the shooter genre is healthy. Most of the major franchises are on a downhill, you just can't deny that. If you take out the likes of Uncharted and MGS the situation is just worse.

It seems people here like to shoot the messenger.



Around the Network
Cerebralbore101 on 20 July 2017

These games have almost nothing in common except the camera perspective and shooting things. I mean MGS is a stealth franchise. ME is RPG. RE is Survival Horror. Nothing can be derived from a study of these games because they are all so vastly different that they appeal to entirely different groups of people.



atma998 on 20 July 2017
potato_hamster said:
DaveTheMinion13 said:

Those Resident Evil 6 sales are wayyyyyyy off lol its almost the same as 5 lolol no research?

Yep. Both Resident Evil 5 and Resident Evil 6 hover around 8 million in sales when you do things like count digital sales, and not assume that VGChartz tracks game totals accurately.

Mr. the scientist you should know that we cannot use two different methodologies in the same analysis. Of course I base mine on the VGC numbers. I cannot simply take VGC numbers for certain games and the publisher numbers for others. But as a scientist, I'm sure you are aware of that.

Capcom numbers not only include digital sales, but also PC sales (most of which are from steam) and also they are shipping figures, not sold.

I have specified that I do not count PC sales as this is a console analysis only.

Also people who can read properly would noticed I have commented on the digital sales.



atma998 on 20 July 2017
Cerebralbore101 said:
These games have almost nothing in common except the camera perspective and shooting things. I mean MGS is a stealth franchise. ME is RPG. RE is Survival Horror. Nothing can be derived from a study of these games because they are all so vastly different that they appeal to entirely different groups of people.

True, someone suggested to use this list of games instead:

Gears of War
Uncharted
Max Payne
Dead Space
Tomb Raider
Spec Ops
Socom
Army of Two
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon (at least the latter games in the series)
Just Cause
Lost Planet
Horizon
Splatoon

We would have the same issue with these games as they do not share the same genre and their gameplay are all very different one from the other. I have only picked up the major one with a third-person perspective. While I agree it has many flaws, at least it shows how well the franchises are doing.

I think the main issue with my thread is the title, I should have said "How are the major franchises with a third-person perspective are trending" but again I'm sure some people would find a way to complain.



atma998 on 20 July 2017
Ka-pi96 said:
atma998 said:

Yes it is indeed a waste of time to post shitty comments instead of constructive ones. Anyway it's not like I was expecting you to prove me wong, I knew from the beginning that whatever the numbers you decide to pick you just can't conclude that the shooter genre is healthy. Most of the major franchises are on a downhill, you just can't deny that. If you take out the likes of Uncharted and MGS the situation is just worse.

It seems people here like to shoot the messenger.

It's a waste of time to post constructive comments actually since you either ignore them or seem to take offence at them.

And considering how flawed this "analysis" is there isn't much else to post anways...

The problem is when I take them, like for example adding Uncharted to the graph, some people are complaining it should not be in there.

Bad if you do bad if you don't I guess. I can only conclude that I cannot please everyone. That's a thing, I can live with this. But people being overly agressive just because the analysis is not 100% as they would like it to do...wow, just wow! Some people should get a life, truely. We are just discussing about trending in sales of some videogame should I remind.

Should I remind also that no one suggested a better graph with specific franchises to include that actually share the same genre as a TPS. No one. Clearly easier just to complain.



Around the Network
Teeqoz on 20 July 2017
Dulfite said:
Splatoon is going to save this genre.

First of all, for it to save the genre, it needs to do more than just be succesful - it needs to help other games in the genre be succesful. Second of all, TPS isn't a genre that needs saving.

Some franchises in the genre are decreasing, like Resident Evil, Mass Effect and Gears of War (the first two of which I'm not sure if are really TPS tbh). Meanwhile, Uncharted has seen growth, and we have seen several new TPS IPs launch to great success, like The Last of Us, Splatoon, The Divison. It's not the genre that's struggling. It's some IPs that were previously the defining franchises of the genre.



potato_hamster on 20 July 2017
atma998 said:
potato_hamster said:

Yep. Both Resident Evil 5 and Resident Evil 6 hover around 8 million in sales when you do things like count digital sales, and not assume that VGChartz tracks game totals accurately.

Mr. the scientist you should know that we cannot use two different methodologies in the same analysis. Of course I base mine on the VGC numbers. I cannot simply take VGC numbers for certain games and the publisher numbers for others. But as a scientist, I'm sure you are aware of that.

Capcom numbers not only include digital sales, but also PC sales (most of which are from steam) and also they are shipping figures, not sold.

I have specified that I do not count PC sales as this is a console analysis only.

Also people who can read properly would noticed I have commented on the digital sales.

Of course. You should use as accurate data as you can. That means not using VGC because they don't count digital sales. If you're going to include games that were released before the advent of digital sales and compare them to current games and excluding what could amount to 20-30% of the sales of those games, then you're not actually representing the data accurately are you? If you're going to make such an assumptions, you should at least acknowledge the flaws in the data acquired and include that in the original post.

I'm guessing at this point you never did so hot in science or any type of analysis work, did you?



potato_hamster on 20 July 2017

edit: double post.



chakkra on 20 July 2017
Ka-pi96 said:
atma998 said:

The problem is when I take them, like for example adding Uncharted to the graph, some people are complaining it should not be in there.

Bad if you do bad if you don't I guess. I can only conclude that I cannot please everyone. That's a thing, I can live with this. But people being overly agressive just because the analysis is not 100% as they would like it to do...wow, just wow! Some people should get a life, truely. We are just discussing about trending in sales of some videogame should I remind.

Should I remind also that no one suggested a better graph with specific franchises to include that actually share the same genre as a TPS. No one. Clearly easier just to complain.

Ok, you want some constructive criticism? Here you go...

You really need to define third-person shooter, and include all games that fit that definition. People may criticise your definition still, but at least if they say "why wasn't x game included" you can point to it and say "because it didn't meet these criteria". As it is you seem to be trying to say some games weren't included because "they aren't primarily a third-person shooter", yet at the same time include games that aren't primarily third-person shooters, but you don't even say what makes something primarily a third-person shooter. I think it's fair to say Resident Evil (survival horror), Mass Effect (RPG) & Metal Gear Solid (Stealth) aren't primarily third-person shooters, so if they are included why can't other games that share genres such as Grand Theft Auto & Tomb Raider be included?

Games shouldn't have to be part of long running franchises to be included. If you really want to show how a whole genre is performing sales wise then both one off games and new IPs which haven't yet received sequels should be there too. Where's Splatoon? The Division?

Perhaps the most important thing, which somebody else already mentioned is that your x axis really should be release years or something. As it is you've got games that released over a decade apart on the same point of the axis, so clearly that's not showing how the genre is trending over time.

And finally your conclusion doesn't match the data you're presenting. You're not looking at the genre overall or at how it has fared over time. All that you're showing is that some franchises have peaked and are now declining, while one (MGS) is fairly steady and another (Uncharted) is still showing growth. There's neither enough data there or a good enough presentation of data to try to analyse anything about the genre as a whole.

Thank you for taking the time to explain this to our colourful OP.    I'm just too lazy and don't have the patience.



atma998 on 20 July 2017
potato_hamster said:
atma998 said:

Mr. the scientist you should know that we cannot use two different methodologies in the same analysis. Of course I base mine on the VGC numbers. I cannot simply take VGC numbers for certain games and the publisher numbers for others. But as a scientist, I'm sure you are aware of that.

Capcom numbers not only include digital sales, but also PC sales (most of which are from steam) and also they are shipping figures, not sold.

I have specified that I do not count PC sales as this is a console analysis only.

Also people who can read properly would noticed I have commented on the digital sales.

Of course. You should use as accurate data as you can. That means not using VGC because they don't count digital sales. If you're going to include games that were released before the advent of digital sales and compare them to current games and excluding what could amount to 20-30% of the sales of those games, then you're not actually representing the data accurately are you? If you're going to make such an assumptions, you should at least acknowledge the flaws in the data acquired and include that in the original post.

I'm guessing at this point you never did so hot in science or any type of analysis work, did you?

You could not resist being condescending, don't you? Also a big lol for not using VGC numbers on VGC site. Don't take it personal but I think you're on the wrong site dude.