Inigo13 said:
mjc2021 said:
MaxwellGT2000 said:
mjc2021 said:
MaxwellGT2000 said:
Esa-Petteri said:
MaxwellGT2000 said:
mjc2021 said:
@ MaxwellGT2000
And I was pointing out why that game in particular shouldn't be included. Either way people bought it because it has a Nintendo franchise. I don't think it should be included, you disagree. Lets leave it to that.
|
How do you know this, did you interview each and every person that bought it, did you take a survey? Do you have any proof at all??? Didn't think so...
|
I guess you think it would have sold that much without mario? :)
|
I believe you missed the discussion which was the game third party and deserves to be included into the OP, try to troll somewhere else...
|
His response was relevant. Do you really think the game would have been as successful without an incredibly popular franchise? |
Sonic games still sell in the millions, so it's not like it sells on Mario's name alone as you guys act, alone with Mario it probably wouldn't have sold as much, alone with Sonic is the same result, being the first game to include both icons was a big point but still doesn't mean it's sales dont matter.
|
Yeah, in the millions with combined sales of multiple consoles.
Sonic & Mario combined gave better sales. But Sonic alone would sell much less than Mario alone.
|
If that were true then why did Sonic and the Secret Rings outsell Mario Strikers Charged and Mario Suger Sluggers?
The name doesn't mean as much as you claim it does.
|
Sonic and the Secret Rings in particular sold pretty but it was also an original game while Mario Strikers and Mario Sluggers are in a long list of sports games.
Try comparing any recent Sonic game to Mario Kart, Mario Party 8, Mario Galaxy, or Smash Bros.
