That's not correct at all, they have never included Hardware in the past.
Halo 5: Guardians Smashes Record with Biggest Halo Launch (games/hardware) in History
- Thread starter Steverulez
- Start date
Do you have a camera lens fetish or something?
So does that make these numbers even worse for Halo 5?
which is what most people have been explaining the whole thread.
ethomaz
Banned
Your own data didn't match your claim.
Halo 3 in 2007
$170m revenue day one
$300m+ revenue first week.
$399 limited edition console (limited to 200k units)
$129 legendary edition game
$69 limited edition game
$59 standard game
no dlc or microtransactions
300k LE x $129 = ~$40m
4.3m x $60 = ~$260m
How do you include hardware for Halo 3? 200k units was $80m.
~4.7m week 1 WW is what it sold from estimate we know.
There is no hardware included in past revenues... if you remove $80m from the hardware the math will never fits... it will give you about ~3m copies sold week 1... Halo 3 sold more than that. It did possible over 1m copies sold in EU alone.
Edit - I found another mistake in your claims.
halo4 is the fastest selling (launch) game
That is true only for US and comparing the first year (not the launch)... Halo 3 did more WW at launch.
kensama
Member
So why claimed this launch is triumphant with 400 Millions $ generated?
They have not the obligation too. But they did on an official channel.
I understand when a publisher don't give number since they exist and not the actual situation.
MS claim it's a triumph with hard and soft combined without figure software sale.
For me it's a little bit strange.
See my anwsers above
Plus i would like to add that i said this too:
Don't do me tell what i never tell in regards to MS. I don't tell that MS is only the one publisher to not give numbers.
I only find strange to claim something and to not be specific with details. As they have something they don't want to show.
Wether they claim a triumph and details, whether they don't tell anything. It's only what i want to say.
Well, I am a photographer and it's an expensive hobby
Sunset Samurai
Member
Still sounds like you're losing more money in the process
Phew, good thing my hobby brings in cash for when my big heart wants to help people out around the holidays
So...you do?
Haha yes, it goes hand in hand
Yeah I know how it feels.
I have an Xbox One fetish and have pretended to be a starving artist and a struggling mother just to get some on the cheap.
Head.spawn
Junior Member
All I see us a giant list of games that nobody would've picked over Halo 3.
CoD didn't get big on the console space until after CoD 4. Now it's a juggernaut, it'd be laughable to claim any of those games you listed back then hold a candle to something like maybe Blops 2 or what Blops 3 will do these days... I wouldn't be surprised if one or two of those modern CoDs could outsell all of the games you have listed if you took H3 out of the picture.
Your list honestly paints a clear picture of why. Halo 3 was such a huge success.
JayWood2010
Member
Skellig Gra
Member
Orange Box came out same time as Halo 3. Granted its PC but still.
justgames7604
Member
Head.spawn
Junior Member
For as excellent as it's critical reception was, it didn't do much on sales in comparison to Halo and certainly not any current CoD.
Loved that collection, it's just a shame valve hates console gamers.
Is the expectation that a company would trumpet good sales figures AND figures they aren't proud of?
Can't think of a single company that handles PR that way...
Sunset Samurai
Member
So you get paid to do photography also? Well if that's the case I get where you're coming from. But we're getting off topic so Imma just say Okey doke.
And now everybody is quoting this BS... /sigh
The Halo3 and 4 figures did -not- include hardware.
In Service
Member
Hahaha. Yep. This is from the first page of this thread:
You would have thought people would have read the first page at least wouldn't you?
No. This is GAF.
Primethius
Banned
Didn't Orange Box come out on consoles?
ethomaz
Banned
First on 360... years later on PS3 but it was a crap port.
Primethius
Banned
Sure, if that's what the majority of the debate was about, you'd have a solid point.
But it wasn't.
I've said in the past that the possibility for Halo 5 to do similar to Halo 3 during its first few weeks (or months) was there due to the Xbox One's userbase being higher than the Xbox 360's userbase back in September 2007 (and people buying an Xbox One for exclusives) but I never said that Halo 5 would do better than Halo 3 overall. I never thought it would due to the changes in the console shooter genre since 2007, as well as the fact that the Xbox One isn't in the same position the 360 was in during its gen.
I expected the game to do better than the original Xbox Halos during their launch periods. Not the Halos on the 360.
___________________
People did do that back during Halo 3's time but again, Call of Duty 4's impact was huge. Halo was seen as being a bigger deal than Call of Duty up until the years after COD4 released (2008+).
You are basically proving my point (even mentioning the same year haha). The boom caused by COD 4 changed Halo's position from that point on.
well i doubt this thread made it to 16 pages overnight congratulating MS on their success
It's talking about how Halo 5 actually did compared to previous Halo games with Microsoft intentionally obscuring the numbers.
Primethius
Banned
Well... it certainly didn't make it to 16 pages doing what you think it did.
But hey, alright.
so, umm, i was right then
Then explain the Xbox One banner on top of this package. Also, toys and shirts aren't hardware.
Nobody is counting toys, apparel or third party anything in those figures. And to clarify, those Astros are third party. Official third party licensees are allowed to use the Xbone logo for obvious reasons, but we also don't count their sales as our sales for also obvious reasons.
Primethius
Banned
I suppose I didn't realize trying to figure out sales numbers or a potential decline was the same as making $400 million sound unimpressive.
Someone should have told me earlier.
Edit: Thanks for the clarification Frankie.
no you're right, definitely no agendas and ulterior motives here
Primethius
Banned
Hey, if you'd like to throw some accusations my way, feel free. But that's what the majority of the debate was about.
Pathfinder
Member
Not meaning to single you out personally, but the majority of this thread has been concentrating on downplaying the $400 million because we don't have specific sales numbers to compare it to.
Primethius
Banned
To be honest, I really don't see that. Yea, we have the trolls and the idiots with their drive by posts but the majority of the debate was centered around what goes into the $400 million number alongside the potential sales decline. I don't really consider it downplaying if your trying to figure out the proper metrics by which to judge the figure.
If people consider talk of a sales decline as downplaying the 400 million figure, then yes, even I'm guilty of that.
But I consider those two figures to be fairly independent. Halo 5 made an absurd amount of money in one week. But there's also the likelyhood of a significant decline from past entries. I don't think discussion of the latter downplays the former.
Even Stinkles uses "Xbone", cool.
JayWood2010
Member
HAHAHA xD Im sorry, but people aren't fooled by people's agendas. Its exactly why forums are filled with so much nonsense.
Hockeymac18
Member
I agree that it's potentially interesting and fine to be curious about the decline in sales of a series - but I do think a relevant follow up question is if this decline ultimately matters in the grand scheme of things. Especially if said franchise is still able to generate nearly half a billion dollars in a single week, and is healthy in other ways.
Sure, they might have had to get there (increased revenue) in different ways from past entries in the series (more expensive editions, more bundles, the REQ system, etc.), but the franchise still seems very healthy, irrespective of any decline in raw number of players (which is likely).
Let's say, hypothetically, that you were able to definitely determine that the series has declined a certain amount. What does that tell you? Sure, it's great to discuss on internet forums, especially from a historical perspective of studying the industry (which I find interesting). We can talk about the reasons why, which have been discussed over-and-over somewhat endlessly the past few days (more FPS competition, landscape has changed since 2007, Xbox One perfomrance vs. passed console performance, etc.).
But does knowing about this decrease warrant the disproportionate amount of attention that the past few Halo games have generally gotten on this topic? Does it really mean that "Halo is dead" as we so often see (often jokingly) thrown around?
I guess I should rephrase this - sure, a decline can be a meaningful thing to know, especially if it's to the point where there are no sales. But that's clearly not where the franchise is - and I don't realistically see it getting to that point (at least anytime soon). Even if all of the "casuals" left, Halo would still have a somewhat die hard fanbase. I do think it's relevant, then, to point out that while there is probably a decline, that decline probably doesn't matter very much in the long run.
All I care about, as a gamer (and one who really enjoys the Halo franchise) is the following:
- The game is fun, and has good MP (really where player count comes into play) - I have found Halo 5's MP to be some of the best in the Halo franchise since 2 - and I like that they've really highlighted many of the things that make Halo MP so great (something that Reach - 4 stumbled with)
- There are enough players to play games - this will play out over the coming weeks/months/years, but I have a feeling that Halo 5 won't have a devastating downturn in number of players like 4 did, especially if they time their updates well - I could obviously be wrong there, though. That said, even if there's a downturn, all I really care about are that there are enough players to play - we don't have to have hugely significant numbers for that. I'm in the US, though, and do acknowledge that this is a bigger issue for people in other regions.
- The developers continue the game over the coming months/years - Halo games have always had good expansion on the MP end. And the REQ system, which isn't all that bad imo (although I don't love microtransactions in games), will help provide free expansions in the future - which I'm thrilled about.
- The creators of the game take user feedback in mind when they make changes/updates to the current (and future) games in the series - 343i has really been doing a good job of that, at least on the MP end of things - and they've been good about bringing things back to the "core" Halo gamers in many ways.
- The creators of the game are making money so they don't go out of business - clearly happening here.
- The franchise will be supported in the future beyond this entry - as long as it's making money, I don't see why MS won't keep making Halo games.
Knowing that a franchise has declined by itself doesn't really tell me that much, especially if it's still very healthy in other ways (good player base, franchise making money, etc.).
I guess this post might come off as me saying "leave halo alone!" - but really, I'm just saying, "so what?" to the statement that there has been a decline in the series. I personally don't think there should be as much doom and gloom around this topic as we generally see here (and in other places). I'm just trying to bring the discussion on this topic down to a reasonable level.
This goes for other major franchises that may not be where they once were, but still have a very dedicated core. I see these kind of things discussed there, and it's just as tiresome. Like Halo, those games will be fine.
NoMoreTrolls
Banned
People are interested in sales because they're interested in sales. Knowing if there has been a decline and to what extent are simply interesting pieces of info for those that like to dabble in sales discussion. Other hobbyists like to know many aspects of the industry, not just if a game is fun. Knowing this information is its own reward irrespective of one's enjoyment of the game in question.
I'd say that other than the obvious trolls, the majority of discussion has been "reasonable." Wanting to know sales numbers has driven millions of posts and page views on this site for the last decade... Why should this be different, especially considering it is a game from one of the most iconic franchises in 20 years?
I'd say that other than the obvious trolls, the majority of discussion has been "reasonable." Wanting to know sales numbers has driven millions of posts and page views on this site for the last decade... Why should this be different, especially considering it is a game from one of the most iconic franchises in 20 years?
pixelation
Member
Oh please... lol
If there is a theme here that I noticed on both sides, is that we unanimously agree that halo is no longer as popular as it use to be, no longer sells what it use to, but still managed to almost make half a billion dollars in 7 days*
*in other ways outside of game sales, because if it made it by game sales it would be screamed from the roof tops
*in other ways outside of game sales, because if it made it by game sales it would be screamed from the roof tops
NoMoreTrolls
Banned
Like Call of Duty, a monstrous franchise that is in decline can still be a monstrous franchise.
Halo 4 sales thread got 3 pages. Don't know if there was another thread though.
You put two lack luster games out two years in a row and you see decline yes.....but black ops 3? That's over flowing with choices of content and will be the biggest FPS of 2015/2016
It won't be declining after tomorrow
To be honest - the fact that the industry has always sort of obscured their sales (outside of quarterly reports as required for corporations) is also part of what drives the obsession to know. We get glimpses (UK, NPDs occasionally) - but rarely is anyone (Sony, MS, Activision, EA, Valve, whoever) completely open about it.
Similar threads
- Poll