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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Why games like Smash selling like they are helps the industry...

Shiken said: 

Enter Smash, a fighter with 72 characters, a ton of stages, and a massive single player mode, and we see sales not only shattered, but systems flying off of store shelves.  Likewise we see the best Dragonball game released in a long time with Dragonball FighterZ, and the game sells far better than projected across all platforms as well.  Even when you look at the side of things outside of what we see on Nintendo...

 

God of War

Horizon Zero Dawn

Assassin's Creed ORIGINS

Red Dead Redemption 2

Spiderman

 

All of these games have either far surpassed sales expectations, or have just outright dominated their respective release windows.  Once again, score one for complete retail gaming experiences.

What this does is give gamers a bit of reassurance that there will still be a healthy balance between both single player and multiplayer experiences in the future, as the numbers do not lie.  It even adds a bit of hope that multiplayer strategies may improve as well.  After all, a company can only lose money for so long before they are forced to try something different.

Assassin's Creed has microtransactions and the game is balanced accordingly so that it's a slog to get through if you don't use them. It doesn't deserve to be listed alongside the others on that list. RDR2 had a shitty online economy, and online that wasn't available right away, so not really a "complete retail gaming experience" either. I never was crazy about GoW as a franchise, but at least it didn't pull that kind of shit. GoW deserved that GOTY award over RDR2 for that alone. You mention "a bit of hope" for multiplayer, but of your non-Nintendo list, only RDR2 had multiplayer, and as I noted, it was pretty flawed. Of your Nintendo games, all but one feature multiplayer, and none of them ruin it with microtransactions or games that feel incomplete out of the box. Nintendo is making good single player and multiplayer games, and single player games with multiplayer features, and vice versa, all feeling like "complete retail gaming experiences" that don't water down the gameplay, cut content that should have been included and sell it as DLC, or make the games a miserable grind if you don't use microtransactions. The multiplayer games usually have something to do by yourself if you prefer the single player part, and the single player experiences offer some sort of multiplayer option that feels neither overbearing nor tacked on, but rather appropriate for what the game is. There's your healthy balance between single player and multiplayer. The rest of the industry has shown no signs of having learned this lesson. Multiplayer games are all lousy with microtransactions, and many single player games are as well. The single player games that are any good haven't even tried to incorporate multiplayer in any way, not through coop, not through a competitive mode, not even with online. Only RDR2 had one, not at launch, and again, had to ruin it by making the economy shitty so people would pay for microtransactions. Multiplayer games don't have single player features even when it would make sense to or the playerbase is used to it, like with the recent COD. I see increasing hope that good single player experiences will be made by non-Nintendo publishers, but no such hope for multiplayer yet, and no hope for games that balance single player and multiplayer well, or at least at a similar quality as the Nintendo games you mentioned. I'll take the new single player experiences though, that's certainly good news, as I tend to prefer that anyway.



Around the Network

How is it good for the industry? There is no indication the industry is or will be better off than it was years ago. Established franchises are doing well, and thats it. Good for them. There is nothing beyond.



Hunting Season is done...

Zoombael said:
How is it good for the industry? There is no indication the industry is or will be better off than it was years ago. Established franchises are doing well, and thats it. Good for them. There is nothing beyond.

Established IPs that do shady practices are not doing well such as Fallout 76, Destiny 2, Battlefront 2,  and Battlefield V.

 

Established IPs that do things RIGHT are doing well such as Zelda, Smash, Red Dead Redemption, SFV , and God of War.

 

Newer IPs that are doing things right are successful such as Octopath Traveler, Horizon Zero Dawn, Splatoon, etc.

 

The entire point went over your head.  These IPs are doing better than they EVER HAVE, while those that do shady practices are failing and catching major backlash.  This discourages shady business models and encourages complete and full experiences out of the box.  That is why it is great for the industry as a whole.  Or do you prefer being sold part of a game and charged more money to complete the experience?

Last edited by Shiken - on 17 January 2019

Nintendo Switch Friend Code: SW-5643-2927-1984

Animal Crossing NH Dream Address: DA-1078-9916-3261

Shiken said:
Zoombael said:
How is it good for the industry? There is no indication the industry is or will be better off than it was years ago. Established franchises are doing well, and thats it. Good for them. There is nothing beyond.

Established IPs that do shady practices are not doing well such as Fallout 76, Destiny 2, Battlefront 2,  and Battlefield V.

 

Established IPs that do things RIGHT are doing well such as Zelda, Smash, Red Dead Redemption, SFV , and God of War.

 

Newer IPs that are doing things right are successful such as Octopath Traveler, Horizon Zero Dawn, Splatoon, etc.

 

The entire point went over your head.  These IPs are doing better than they EVER HAVE, while those that do shady practices are failing and catching major backlash.  This discourages shady business models and encourages complete and full experiences out of the box.  That is why it is great for the industry as a whole.  Or do you prefer being sold part of a game and charged more money to complete the experience?

 

 

You didnt answer the question.

How is it helping the whole of the industry? All it does, it tells the industry "lets go with the same ol same ol. Ol franchise, popular genre..".

You fail to see the big picture, the persisting dilemma. The risk to produce a time/money consuming product and fail miserably in this line of business remains unaltered. We wont get Alien Isolation 2, because Alien Isolation was commercially unsuccessful, despite being a v ery good game set in a well known universe. Same goes for Prey 2017. Btw. whats Arkane Studios working on? More game development studios than ever go out of business on a regular basis, release schedules are so densely packed release dates have to be postponed to have better sales in the initial crucial months and ironically games you mentioned fall into the category of games as one reason why other games, single player games dont do well.

It only helps those succesful on the path they can afford to walk.

Mentioning Octopath, some small jrpg in 16bit style. HZD, developed by a Sony Studio with marketing Powerhouse in their back and the need of a platform holder to attract customers and a certain clientel with exclusive content. Splatoon, combination of aforementioned games and circumstances.

 

"Or do you prefer being sold part of a game and charged more money to complete the experience?" 

 

i dont mind story DLCs like in Spiderman. Story DLCs as in DeusEx MD not so much. Whereas MTX and "cancerous" business stratgies that come along with  them (Overwatch, BFV, PUBG, Fortnite aso.) i see as detremental long term.

 



Hunting Season is done...

I'd love to know how these games selling so well help me in gaining more quality RTS games, from a genre that's been widely ignored for years now. Last good AAA RTS was SCII and that was 20-10, nearly 10 years ago. How does Smash selling so well help me get more AAA RTS games?.



Around the Network

Of all those best sellers, only one franchise was not a sequel or preexisting property...Horizon.

I agree that gamers want all those things mentioned by the OP, but I'd argue that making those games is no simple task.

So even if publishers are aware of this "winning formula" (making a complete game that keeps the gamer coming back), making a good game or one that is even profitable isn't necessarily going to happen. These huge experiences for the most part still piggyback on the success of the IP.

So if a developer isn't up to the task of delivering the type of quality that Nintendo or Rockstar are going to deliver, of course it's going to be easier to nickel and dime their customers using the popularity of a preexisting property.

It's not a good thing, but in every industry, there are stinkers and there are winners. It's not reasonable to expect all games to be made at the calibre that these winners are, because resources (including talent) are finite.



It’s good for the industry when any game sells well. I’d like to see the receipts on all those games you listed “losing a lot of money”. Two of them came out like 2 months ago or less, hard to see how they could have lost “a lot of money”. Especially considering they are online focused titles with mostly rehashed content.

Gamers have always valued good games with good amounts of content. There’s a lot of fuss about microtransactions and how “single player games are dying” but all three console makers and lots of big publishers still put out tons of good, meaty games with single player functionality.

You know what would really make Smash’s sales great? If Nintendo took some of those profits and invested in a number of new IPs.