Opus Angelorum
Member
Around 160k for the two weeks.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Media Create Sales: Week 11, 2013 (Mar 11 - Mar 17)
- Thread starter Chris1964
- Start date
Around 160k for the two weeks.
Well, Luigi's Mansion did 348,918 on the GC (that was able to sell SW in a meaningful way, but was not so hot), so let's say that, considering how 3DS seems able to sell SW AND having a significant role in the HW market, it's not surprising.
Obviously, if it will end selling more like a 3D Mario and not as a Paper Mario, would still be a HUGE improvment
Yes.
Please be true.
Opus Angelorum
Member
Chris1964 is legit.
shinra-bansho
Member
100K shipment for One Piece PSV would be around 50-60K day one. Too high, imo, considering the sentiment that this game should flop given the sour taste the last one might have left.
Opus Angelorum
Member
I was under the impression GAF thought it could be another 'big' seller after Soul Sacrifice, or was that just wishful thinking?
I think One Piece PS3 is 50~60% and Vita was basically sold-out, no?
Anyway, the same guy is hinting at Luigi's Mansion 2 on top of the charts.
It's 'big' because OPM1 sold a ton...but that doesn't mean or guarantee it'll actually sell a whole lot on the Vita. It still might be one of the best-selling multiplat titles (PSP/Vita or PS3/Vita generally) on it though. But that might not translate to many sales anyway.
Pie and Beans
Look for me on the local news, I'll be the guy arrested for trying to burn down a Nintendo exec's house.
I dont know where all this sour taste and "last one was bad" stuff is coming from. It was really pretty damn good. This new one is giving me a sour taste because it takes massive lazy liberties with the fiction and timeline for timeskip promotional reasons.
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
That is done mostly to generate hype. It is not unusual that games get announced early and some of them ends up getting canceled. I think that happends to every gaming system. Unless you mean that every console company are desperate in this regards
All of the games are planed in one shape or another when they are being mentioned at game system unveiling, so i dont see the complaint about showing games that hadnt started full production yet, especially when the games materialized in the end anyway.
And system launch announcement does not reveal every 3rd party support out there. Maybe company names are listed, but not specific titles, so it is hard to know exactly how much titles that are planned. For example, Monster Hunter TriG and Monster Hunter 4 mentioned could easily have been mentioned by Nintendo much earlier that what they were.
It is unusual though to showcase so many tech demos and game demos which even the developers know that they dont plan to put on the system (yakuza, mgs4 etc). Unless it is a silent pled to the game developers who didn't jump on board.
Average user review:
Hokuto Musou: 66
http://www.psmk2.net/title.php?title=566
One Piece Musou: 54
http://www.psmk2.net/title.php?title=920
Not the end all be all or anything, but that's the only place I know where to look for Japanese reaction to a game. =P
Hokuto Musou: 66
http://www.psmk2.net/title.php?title=566
One Piece Musou: 54
http://www.psmk2.net/title.php?title=920
Not the end all be all or anything, but that's the only place I know where to look for Japanese reaction to a game. =P
Well, there's also Amazon...
MasterSheen
Member
LM2 is selling a high amount of its 500k shipment. Could sell more in one week in Japan than LM did in total. To think people were scoffing at LM2 selling much more than 1-2m worldwide...
michaelius
Banned
Meruru seems to have done rather badly. Previous remake sold around 30k.
Being an adventure game instead of a platformer can potentially hurt its legs quite a lot. It's definitely too early to make a call on how many units it will end up selling or even comparing it to SM3DL.
I think it'll follow a more traditional sales pattern compared to Nintendo's "evergreen" games. I don't think it's completely unlikely to hit a million if it sells about 400k first week, though.
Come to think of it, I wonder if Luigis Mansion 2 benefits from being a Mario universe game that looks and feels completely different for once. If it's successful enough, I hope that Nintendo might get the message to be more adventurous with their Mario games again.
test_account
XP-39C²
What would you concider as a good result?
What do you mean with "so many tech demos"? Was anything else shown outside of Yakuza and MGS4? Which game demos were shown? Both Sega and Konami has shown support for the Vita as well.
But tech demos are not unusual, not at all. The WiiU had like 3 tech demos for example, and they can show different purposes. Tech demos are made to show what the tech can do, they are not game announcements unless something specific is mentioned. I'm pretty sure that the purpose of the Yakuza and MGS4 tech demos was to show that porting things over to the Vita could be done in a quick time. I dont think it matters who does the tech demos, 1st party or 3rd party, as long as the message with the tech demo gets across.
lunchwithyuzo
Banned
Lost Planet 2 iirc. Which likely evolved into E.X.Troopers (and then jumped ship to 3DS/PS3).
Father_Brain
Banned
That is done mostly to generate hype. It is not unusual that games get announced early and some of them ends up getting canceled. I think that happends to every gaming system. Unless you mean that every console company are desperate in this regardsAll of the games are planed in one shape or another when they are being mentioned at game system unveiling, so i dont see the complaint about showing games that hadnt started full production yet, especially when the games materialized in the end anyway.
Of course that happens to some extent with every console, but even DC and GC had major third-party exclusives announced and shown off prior to launch. Vita? Only a logo and tech demos at the Jan. 2011 reveal; only a vaporware logo (Bioshock), a fighting game port, and a few Japanese niche titles at E3 2011; only logos at Gamescom. Most embarrassing of all was TGS 2011, where Sony's "big" announcements consisted of multiplatform releases and multiplatform PS2 ports from the same studios (SE and KojiPro) that had been among PSP's biggest exclusive supporters.
By September 2011, and even by the time 3DS launched, Capcom had already announced significant enough 3DS support that one could easily infer that they were fairly bullish on the platform. One couldn't say the same for Vita's support from any major publisher.
RurouniZel
Asks questions so Ezalc doesn't have to
Sad, but not unexpected. :-/. There really is no incentive to purchase a new version of the game.
test_account
XP-39C²
Ah yes, i forgot about that. There was also Monster Hunter 3rd Portable, although not really a tech demo, but it was shown in a way to show how the 2nd analog stick could benefit PSP games, showing advantage in the tech, serving as a tech demo in that regards
I was only referring to what you were saying about being so desperate. Listing games like that is not uncommon and it is not something i would concider as being desperate. Nintendo showed that both Assassins Creed and Saints Row would come to the 3DS for example, but i dont concider Nintendo being desperate at all because they showed this. Those games were most likely planned at the time, so it would make sense to mention them. Just like it would make sense to mention Bioshock for the Vita, because that game was planned in one shape or another at that time.
Which 3DS Capcom games did we know about before the launch? Super Street Fighter 4 since that was a launch game, but what else?
But i just ment that all 3rd party support isnt revealed before a system is launched. I wasnt trying to make an arguement for or against Vita, i was talking about systems in general
My point was that not all upcoming 3rd party support is announced before the system launch. We saw this with Monster Hunter for the 3DS for example. Before the 3DS launch, we had no idea that these games were coming to the 3DS. I thought you ment that we already knew for sure that the Vita 3rd party support would be bad before launch, that is why i mentioned this. But we know how things played out now that time has pasted.lunchwithyuzo
Banned
I'd say there's still notable difference between something like Saints Row or ACR 3DS and Bioshock Vita though. The former were games headed to the platform simply as part of a wider commitment and only ever mentioned as part of a longer list of 40+ games, while the latter had the earmarkings of a key moneyhatted exclusive for which Sony even had the franchise creator come out on stage to singularly announce. Both are vaporware, but the significance and reveal of each seem at opposite ends of the spectrum.
Additionally, the former were canceled for reasons having to do with things beyond the platform itself, while the latter (while not technically "canceled") isn't happening because said moneyhat seems to no longer be on the table.
Father_Brain
Banned
Context matters. If Sony's actual non-logo third-party software lineup at E3 2011 hadn't consisted mainly of SFxT, Dragon's Crown, Virtua Tennis, Shinobido 2, and Dynasty Warriors, the Bioshock logo would have seemed a lot less desperate in hindsight.
Presentation also matters. Yes, the AC and SR logos were shown during Nintendo's E3 2010 conference, but they were only briefly mentioned by Iwata in the context of listing third-party support. They didn't bring Yves Guillemot or Danny Bilson up on stage to hype up those titles.
EDIT: Beaten to the point by lunchwithyuzo, oh well.
test_account
XP-39C²
That might be, but that was just one example, several games were mentioned earlier, like Call of Duty and FFX HD. I dont concider it being so desperate to mention these titles early on when they are planned.
Ken Levine did not came to stage to singularlry announce Bioshock Vita by the way. He was talking about Move support for Bioshock Infinate as well, which i assume it has now that the game is out? (i havnt been following the game very closely).
Which reasons were those? THQ didnt go bankrupt before quite some time after E3 2010, and Ubisoft is still very much alive and kicking.
What context to you mean? But i still dont concider it as being desperate. You mentioned stuff like Call of Duty and FFX HD as well, that it was desperate to mention these games.
electroplankton
Banned
Context matters, indeed.
The problem was more related to the fact that Vita was PSP successor, and software houses that found many successes on PSP did not develop anything relevant on Vita. And they did not announce anything relevant prior the launch.
The problem was more related to the fact that Vita was PSP successor, and software houses that found many successes on PSP did not develop anything relevant on Vita. And they did not announce anything relevant prior the launch.
Father_Brain
Banned
Logos are desperate when you don't have any actual software to show that reflects genuine commitment to your platform from any of the major third parties (especially so in the cases of KojiPro and SE, where the logos themselves reflected a lack of commitment to Vita support). Nintendo was never in that position with 3DS; Sony was, as evidenced by SCE itself choosing to place major onstage emphasis on the COD, Bioshock, AC, FFX, and KojiPro logos at the respective 2011 events where they debuted.
(I would also note that thanks to GAFer Mario, we know that SCE was preparing a third-party sizzle reel for the NGP unveiling in January 2011, but decided not to show it; that merely seemed strange at the time, but was actually quite revealing in hindsight.)
test_account
XP-39C²
I see you point, but i disagree that it desperate to show logos like that when the games are planned. Every console company wants to show as much as they can before the system is launched. Or with the WiiU, having John Ricotello up on stage talking about how great the relationship between EA and Nintendo were. I dont concider this to be desperate either.
Which big 3DS 3rd party game did Nintendo emphasis before launch?
What is this about?
That is done mostly to generate hype. It is not unusual that games get announced early and some of them ends up getting canceled. I think that happends to every gaming system. Unless you mean that every console company are desperate in this regards
All of the games are planed in one shape or another when they are being mentioned at game system unveiling, so i dont see the complaint about showing games that hadnt started full production yet, especially when the games materialized in the end anyway.
And system launch announcement does not reveal every 3rd party support out there. Maybe company names are listed, but not specific titles, so it is hard to know exactly how much titles that are planned. For example, Monster Hunter TriG and Monster Hunter 4 mentioned could easily have been mentioned by Nintendo much earlier that what they were.
Yes, companies do announce games and support before launch to generate hype and give users a taste of what the software environment will be like. But the platform holder shouldn't have those theoretical games serve as software pillars that the platform is built upon. Such a strategy is foolish, and is exactly what Sony pulled with the Vita.
Father_Brain
Banned
That was more embarrassing than desperate, IMO, as with most of Nintendo's third-party showing for Wii U. YMMV, though.
RE: Revelations, Kingdom Hearts 3D, Level-5's titles. There you go.
The other factor here is that Sony is historically far more dependent on third-party software than Nintendo is (particularly in the handheld market), so I don't think it's unfair to hold them to a higher standard. But whether you agree or disagree, 3DS' pre-launch support was demonstrably better.
test_account
XP-39C²
I wouldnt say that the games are theoretical. At least to me that would imply that the games were not planned at all. But i think i know what you mean, that they should announce the games before there is anything to show, and to be sure that the games finish the developement process. That could be a good strategy as well i think, because that eliminates the chances of the game being canceled. But on the other hand, then you also have less to show for, and less stuff to build hype on. I guess it becomes a question of balancing those things out. Sony also had their first party software to work as pillars by the way, so the whole system was relying only on Call of Duty and such.
lunchwithyuzo
Banned
Oh, I don't think either case is desperate, games get announced all the time that end up not seeing the light of day. Especially at launch.
My issue is that the 3DS games you mentioned make for an awful comparison because they're nowhere near equivalent titles for the platform. There's not really much that is tbh, as Nintendo seems allergic to western moneyhats. Lego City is probably the closest thing there is to CODBOD, AC3Lib and Bioshock Vita.
Saints Row 3DS was an XBLA port, and the original was canceled. ACR 3DS got cannibalized by a concurrent console project. In both cases this happened before 3DS was even on shelves and not due to the fortunes of the system itself.
test_account
XP-39C²
I assume that the relationship between EA and Nintendo were better when John Ricotello came up on stage, but i'm not sure what changed a long the way (if anything changed that is). I think it was good for Nintendo to show this at the time, trying to build hype.
Thanks. I also remember Resident Evil Mercenaries now
What was the sizzle reel for Vita that you mentioned earlier by the way?
That is true, Nintendo's 1st party offerings is the strongest in the business indeed.
I see what you mean with being desperate though, that instead of showing of something more solid and stuff that were further into developement, they showed more stuff that was very early in planning and only had a title/logo to be shown. But personally i dont think that it was desperate because those Vita titles that Sony mentioned are pretty strong IPs, and they were planned at the time, so i think it makes sense to mention them without being seen as being desperate, in my opinion. To me, 'desperate' sounds more like they were running around trying to grab any 3rd party support they could before launch of the Vita, picking up scraps etc., if you see what i mean?
I understand. Saints Row and especially Assassins Creed are pretty strong IPs though, especially if we talk about western support, that is why i mentioned those in comparison (sorry if the earlier discussion was only about Japan, i thought it was about the worldwide situation). But i actually didnt mean that much more to it other than show that 3DS games were canceled as well, and that it is not unusual that some games announced before system launch gets canceled.
I see what you mean.I had no idea that there was a Saints Row game planned for XBLA. Maybe something similar to what Capcom did with Dead Rising 2 i guess? Smaller titles, but still in 3D and all that, like the main games have.
lunchwithyuzo
Banned
Sure, but the context of each release is what separates them and makes them really incomparable. What you're saying is essentially "games get canceled" as if there's any equivalence but the truth is 3DS doesn't have an equivalent cancellation to BSV.
I also think I'd classify Bioshock Vita's "cancellation" as an unusual circumstance though. High profile moneyhatted exclusives not materializing really isn't your usual vaporware and it's worrying that the only reason for the game not happening seems to on Sony's end backing out. That hasn't happened on 3DS. It hasn't even really happened on Wii U.
test_account
XP-39C²
Personally i dont see Bioshock Vita as being a huge title for the Vita when we look at the popularity of the IP, at least not significantly bigger than what an Assassins Creed 3DS title would be like. But fair enough to point out the differences surrounding the announcements and such. The end result for the gamers would be the same regardless however, games of bigger IPs they thought would be released ended up being canceled, unfortunately.
What type of moneyhat did Sony offer for Bioshock Vita by the way?
Father_Brain
Banned
There seems to be a missing word or two there, but how do we know that it was Sony that backed out, rather than Take Two?
That's because that's exactly what they were doing.
Shikamaru Ninja
任天å ã® å¿è
Nintendo owns the best selling IPs. They also happen to do extremely well with certain demographics. But SONY does a better job at cultivating and managing world wide studios that constantly create risky high budget IPs.
test_account
XP-39C²
I dont think that is the case, at least not in the way i think of. Sorry if i wasnt clear, but what i was thinking of was litterally having to offer moneyhats to every 3rd party titles because they couldnt get any (and with picking up scraps, i'm thinking of having to give intensives/moneyhatting even the smallest projects). That is what i concider desperation in this case, but i dont think this is a senario that happened.
I think most of the earlier 3rd party Vita supporters were there when Sony showed them the hardware. What we saw from launch support from 3rd parties were no projects with huge risks, so i dont see why Sony would run around desperately and paying those companies to make Vita games. There is probably always the common 1st party to 3rd party connections though, trying to maintain good support and relationship, but that goes for every 1st party company.
Yeah, that is true. On this topic, it would be cool to see a new big budget IP from Nintendo in this generation as well.
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
Its just that i think if the WIP games are too far from production, it might be a better to not place a big emphasize on them. Nintendo did well with showcasing those 3DS 3rd party support well. They rattled off the list to illustrate the point that it has strong 3rd party support. They were careful not to leave a strong impression on any titles and keep the expectation moderate.
On the other hand, Sony emphasize more on the games individually to illustrate the point that these games are coming, when some of them haven't even got greenlight yet.
Additionally, the showcasing of the game demo with yakuza and stuffs were unnecessary, and will have been better shown behind closed doors to developers, since they only serves to illustrate how easy it is to port over from ps3. Showing them on stage achieves nothing but confusion and false hope to the consumers (which will lead to disappointment later on), and to also serve as stage time fillers. Just a simple "metal gear solid 4 vita" google and you will understand why i say that (unless sony is actually intending to misled the consumers in the first place).
grimshawish
Banned
Killzone for Vita and PS4 is not high risk its just stubborn.
MS has done a better job of creating new IPs in the last generation.
Yes that was part of THQ's DD tag along game strategy that fell apart rather quickly.
I was having a discussion off site with someone and came up with a question I was curious about. This doesn't solely have to do with Japan, but since we're talking about third party support and Saints Row, it feels appropriate.
For both Wii U and Vita (preferably listed separately), which third party publishers have a game announced that meets the following three requirements.
1.) Is a retail title (as in not PSN/eShop only).
2.) Is not a port of a game already released on another system (even if that port is upgraded). It can be a simultaneous release on multiple platforms, but it can't have already released on another platform before it came to the Wii U/Vita.
3.) The title is not published by Nintendo/Sony, so something like Super Smash Bros by Namco, FE x SMT by Atlus, Bayonetta 2 by Platinum, Soul Sacrifice by Marvelous, or Plants vs. Zombies by Sony Online Entertainment wouldn't count. I want to exclude these because generally the console vendor is footing the whole bill and it becomes much closer to a first/second party title than a third party title.
For both Wii U and Vita (preferably listed separately), which third party publishers have a game announced that meets the following three requirements.
1.) Is a retail title (as in not PSN/eShop only).
2.) Is not a port of a game already released on another system (even if that port is upgraded). It can be a simultaneous release on multiple platforms, but it can't have already released on another platform before it came to the Wii U/Vita.
3.) The title is not published by Nintendo/Sony, so something like Super Smash Bros by Namco, FE x SMT by Atlus, Bayonetta 2 by Platinum, Soul Sacrifice by Marvelous, or Plants vs. Zombies by Sony Online Entertainment wouldn't count. I want to exclude these because generally the console vendor is footing the whole bill and it becomes much closer to a first/second party title than a third party title.
100k! Obviously, kinda ignoring the Vita context here hehe.
Amazing first day for Luigi. It'll probably open with 380k+!!
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
Sony didnt moneyhat bioshock vita. Sony discovered that kevin levine has fantasized a bioshock vita, so they got him to announce it when nothing was done at all. Kevin levine just go along with the plan because he wants to help sony.
And then last month, he admitted that the business dealing of sony and take two didn't progress at all and he can't do anything.
campfireweekend
Member
The upcoming Lego games from WB for both platforms. Rayman legends, Assassin's creed 4 and watch_dogs from Ubisoft for Wii u. I feel that's a bit disingenuous for the Wii u though, its biggest releases are always going to be Nintendo published
AranhaHunter
Banned
Off the top of my head:
Assassin's Creed IV, Watch Dogs, Injustice Gods Among Us for WiiU
God Eater 2, Valhala Knights 3, Toukiden, Dragon's Crown for Vita
Would these qualify?