Support NeoGAF

[tokilamockingbrd]

Actually I was just trying to find Demon's Souls sales numbers myself, and the 1.7 mentioned on wikipedia seems a bit dubious. The "sales estimates" in the sourced article looked awfully much like Chartz numbers.

most of their really old data is just shipped numbers from company financials. if the numbers are within the past 6 months they are most likely wrong though.

 

[tokilamockingbrd]

Incorrect, Titanfall did over a million on NPD on XB1.

Where can I find a link to that. Titanfall was only at like 2.5 million sold WW last time I checked (finacials). I would be pretty bad if it sold almost 50% of its total in one territory in its launch month.


Titanfall launched on the 11th of the month last year. You are comparing 20 days+ of sales with 10.

 

[Effigenius]

Sort of piggybacking this question off the news from this thread http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1028938.
If a mod feels this isn't different enough feel free to lock.



Bloodborne is the fastest selling Souls game, we can't say for sure that will mean it will be the highest selling overall but its a reasonable assumption given the rate.

Just to compare those numbers, Bloodborne sold the same amount in a 1/3 of the time as an exclusive, and on nearly 1/10th of the player base.

I think we're guaranteed to get 1-2 good DLC's for Bloodborne. But what do you think these sales mean for the future of From Software going froward with Sony, but also overall. Its clear that their appeal and sale-potential isn't limited to the Souls name or universe.

I think more From/Sony collaborations have good potential to be in store given the fact that From/Kadokawa can make a game thats sold faster and potentially more than the DS1/2 as an exclusive funded by Sony and without carrying the development risk but still reaping the benefits. From a business standpoint is it possible that From/Kadokawa may look at it as "Why would we carry the risk and fund our own game when it will sold more when someone else payed for it." I may be incorrect but don't traditionally, exclusive entries in a series sell less than the main ones?

Also I'd like to think we may see more variated games in the sense that From may not limit themselves to just the Souls lore/universe or Bloodborne but have more freedom with the story and mechanics but just keeping the core feel of the gameplay the same.

What do you guys think?

You left out the PC which is a pretty major user base. I dont feel like there is much risk for these games, the demand has been established. So there is no real benefit to exclusivity. To just decide not to release tames on PC and xb1 is just saying no to money.

 

[elhav]

I think we're probably about to get dat Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed yearly feelz with this series.

No way. Miyazaki isn't the type to milk his games. He'll do something different, if he doesn't come up with good new ideas for the same franchise. Seems to me like he made Bloodborne because he wanted to stray from Dark Souls for a bit.

I'm sure he'll come out with new franchises with new settings etc. He just seems like that kind of developer.

 

[-Stryder-]

It means Bloodborne 2.

You're welcome

/thread

 

[beril]

They didn't publish Dark Souls, they only published it in Japan, if they had the funds to publish it WW, they would have done so instead of letting Bamco take a big chunk of the profit for no reason.

& about your second point, full funding can still happen even if the developer is owned by a big publisher, there's no better recent example than Star Oceans Tri-Ace is owned by a big publisher, yet they're still making a game fully funded by SE, meanwhile, Nepro gets paid all the costs of keeping Tri-Ace running and more.

From couldn't really have published it WW since they have no overseas office, so they needed someone to partner with. The question is would Nacmo have let them selfpublish in Japan if they had paid for a significant chunk of the development budget.

The full details of the deals aren't publicly known, but it's very clear that the situation is entirely different from their Sony partnerships, where Sony owns everything.

 

[Alo0oy]

Where can I find a link to that. Titanfall was only at like 2.5 million sold WW last time I checked (finacials). I would be pretty bad if it sold almost 50% of its total in one territory in its launch month.


Titanfall launched on the 11th of the month last year. You are comparing 20 days+ of sales with 10.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=803922

Yes it launched on 11th March, but that 1 million is US only.

 

[Psycho_Mantis]

You left out the PC which is a pretty major user base. I dont feel like there is much risk for these games, the demand has been established. So there is no real benefit to exclusivity. To just decide not to release tames on PC and xb1 is just saying no to money.

Not really. Bloodborne has become the fastest selling FROM game despite being an early PS4 exclusive. You also have the potential of 360/PC players having already bought a PS4 for the game.

Furthermore you are undermining the possible incentives FROM/Kadokawa get by partnering with SCE. Budget has potential to be more significant, advertising costs can be covered and may be more prominent, they may help with the development of their next gen engine, platform costs may be negated, risks may be less severe etc You have to weigh both sides.

 

[tokilamockingbrd]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=803922

Yes it launched on 11th March, but that 1 million is US only.

US is a vast majority of the XB1's sales. Titanfall's sales were pretty good. My whole point is the fact we can even compare Titanfall's sales with Bloodbornes means it is not niche.

March 2014- TF 850k 1mil w/ bundles counted - US Only

Bloodborne 10 Days WW- 1 million.

BB will probably be at 1.2-3 million WW by the 20 day mark which would put it just under TF.