• 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.

NPD Sales Results for November 2015 [Up3: Combined Hardware For PS4 + XB1 + Wii U]

Nintendo has mentioned multiple times over the past few years they want to leverage their IPs more.

So, I think theres definitely a possibility it can happen.

They meant mobile, where it's cheaper, and they lack any talent or resources to do so.

It just means using them more outside gaming, as in merchandising, movies, theme parks, toys etc.

This too.
No one actually wants to work on those IPs given the choice because there isn't enough long term upside. They would have to paid, and paid well.
 

SeanR1221

Member
Somehow I doubt any side would agree to that.
Nintendo would be losing creative control of their IPs, letting others profit from brands they have been building for the past 30 years.
3rd parties would in turn be paying a fee (a license or a profit share) while limiting themselves to only one platform. Unless it's a small unproven developer that can gain some experience and will work for food, but I doubt that was the idea. Activision or EA or others have very little to gain by entering these deals.

This just looks like a lose-lose deal to me.

I think leveraging their IPs does not mean what you proposed. It just means using them more outside gaming, as in merchandising, movies, theme parks, toys etc.
They are reluctant to use their strong IPs even for their own mobile games.

They meant mobile, where it's cheaper, and they lack any talent or resources to do so.



This too.
No one actually wants to work on those IPs given the choice because there isn't enough long term upside. They would have to paid, and paid well.

When we have a system where Tecmo worked on Hyrule Warriors and Platinum is making the new Star Fox, I have no idea why you guys are so insistent this stuff won't happen more.
 

benny_a

extra source of jiggaflops
When we have a system where Tecmo worked on Hyrule Warriors and Platinum is making the new Star Fox, I have no idea why you guys are so insistent this stuff won't happen more.
Maybe there is just some confusion.

When people talk about third parties not supporting the last Nintendo console they mean ActivisionBlizzard, EA, Ubisoft, WBIE & T2.

They don't mean the independent developer Platinum Games being hired by Nintendo to make an aspect of their game.
 

Shin-chan

Member
When we have a system where Tecmo worked on Hyrule Warriors and Platinum is making the new Star Fox, I have no idea why you guys are so insistent this stuff won't happen more.

There's a world of difference between Platinum making Star Fox and Ubisoft making an exclusive Assassins Creed-style Zelda spin off.

By third party support people are mainly referring to Western publishers, because Japanese support for Nintendo has always been at an acceptable level (albeit less so than Playstation). This is also the thing that would help drive sales but creates the chicken-egg scenario between support and the audience for these Western titles.
 

Steroyd

Member
When we have a system where Tecmo worked on Hyrule Warriors and Platinum is making the new Star Fox, I have no idea why you guys are so insistent this stuff won't happen more.

Not to mention with the Gamecube you had the Metal Gear Solid Remake, Mario, Luigi and Peach cameo's in SSX and Link in Soul Calibur, these days we have to beg having 3rd party characters in Smash Bros.
 

IvanJ

Banned
Maybe there is just some confusion.

When people talk about third parties not supporting the last Nintendo console they mean ActivisionBlizzard, EA, Ubisoft, WBIE & T2.

They don't mean the independent developer Platinum Games being hired by Nintendo to make an aspect of their game.
Yes, this is what I was saying and thinking. Platinum is a for hire studio working "for food" as I put it.
Also, I wasn't talking about many smaller Japanese firms, because Nintendo's problem is not Japan or a lack of Japanese flavored games.
 
Eh... It's not like the latest installments in both series were recent games. I think both games will do well as long as they don't release during a busy multi platform gaming period. Hopefully MS learned from Halo 5's launch.

Nope, You can bet your bottom dollar that Gears 4 will be a holiday release. Scalebound too.

I remember standing in line for Alan Wake at a midnight launch event. I think I was one of three people there getting it. Everyone else was getting Red Dead Redemption.

SPOT-ON RELEASE, MICROSOFT!

Red Dead actually delayed and got moved into Alan Wake's release date. The delay wasn't a long one either. Oh well, the perils of releasing a game in May.
 

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
i don't really have a dog in the microsoft/sony race. who does better here is about as interesting as the presidential campaign between jack johnson and john jackson. that said, i love speculating, and i think the idea that microsoft is done and there's no reversing things as far as next gen is concerned doesn't take into account a lot of the stuff that goes on behind the scenes. the direction behind xbox changed wildly from 2005 to 2015, and can be broken down into a few key areas:

(now before 2005, i think microsoft was largely directionless. they were basically throwing shit at the wall and seeing what stuck, making games with anyone as long as it could be exclusive. the best thing they did in this era was buy bungie and get xbox live up and running)

2005-mid 2010: the console for gamers. and by gamers, i really mean the 18-34 year old male playing online shooters. this was microsoft really leveraging xbox live as a way to create a community. and hell, it worked. they managed to ship nearly 40 million systems by the end of 2009, massively up over the predecessor which had sold 24 million in the same time, while also selling far more software. it was also the go-to place if you had a multiplayer game. the 360 may have been outclassed by the ps3, but most of the time, multiplayer games looked or ran better on the 360. the moves microsoft made here included promoting indie games like braid and limbo, and making xbox live the centerpiece of the console (remember that e3 when you could download some demos of games on the show floor? crazy right?)

mid 2010-mid 2013: the console for everyone. bungie left to do their own thing and no one ever heard from them ever again. this is when kinect took off and microsoft started to coast a little on the success of it afterwards. late 2010 and all of 2011 were the highest points of the 360, and from this it's hard not to see why they would have thought they'd struck gold. while first-party games and franchises were no longer new and exciting, and usually made from companies unaffiliated with the property originally, the 360 had become the place for family games (not just kinect), and it was still the go-to console for multiplatform titles. it's this version of the 360 that led the platform to become the best-selling console of the 7th generation in the united states.

mid 2013-late 2014: the console for no one. the reveal of the xbox one was disastrous. e3 2013 was actually fine, but it was completely overshadowed by the may 2013 reveal to the point where people mistaken announcements from the reveal as showing up in the e3 show, especially in the context of sony's show later that day. but basically the direction of the thing was 'kinect is popular so we'll do that... and because we have the system for everyone, we'll put in other non-gaming features like we've always wanted. we've conquered the living room, people!' with a dash of 'oh and let's not let anyone fucking pirate anything.' if i have to pick a period of the xbox's history that was even more mired in 'please the board room guys' than the original period where microsoft was just trying to get their foot in the door, it has to be this one. microsoft wanted something that had a broad reach with its accessibility and features, but they also wanted a high end machine. the result was a system that could play multiplatform games, but with a price point that was prohibitively expensive to the main fanbase they wanted. even if they did secure the espn-loving crowd and families (probably with a $300 consoles and something marketed more explicitly towards them), they wouldn't have gotten around the always-online thing.

late 2014-present: the console for gamers. microsoft spent most of 2014 and all of 2013 undoing the mistakes of the may reveal. but they couldn't drop kinect and as a result, couldn't drop the price. they couldn't make the system more powerful either. however, they were able to eventually drop the price rather significantly in late 2014, and kept going into 2015 to where it was selling at a lower price than the ps4 (until the two were finally on equal footing late in the year). online-only is now a bad dream, xbox tv is dead, kinect is gone, and the family push is gone with it (although it's the second best performing platform for family games of the 8th gen systems a lot of the times - probably a holdover from the 360 userbase). phil spencer seems to be doing and saying all the right things too. backwards compatibility with the previous generation isn't a major system-selling thing, but it's definitely a show of good will. rare replay and sea of thieves also shows microsoft acknowledging the company's legacy and letting them stretch their legs a little with something new that looks like something they wanted to do. there's overall a bigger push to make microsoft's first-party stuff mean something.

what i want to say is, direction and passion matters. i don't know if you can put too much stock into what happened in 2015 either since it was most likely holdover from stuff decided when don mattrick was in charge. i have to assume for instance, that the halo tv show was supposed to happen with halo 5 (sony managed to get the powers tv show out about one year after bendis started talking about it, and a few days after he stopped talking about it). a lot of other first-party games were probably made in times less friendly to developers. i don't think it's necessarily the best indication of how things will happen moving forward.

the last thing i want to touch upon is how we don't even know the plan for the ninth generation. personally? i'm thinking that microsoft might join nintendo in the os game and start applying xbox to more than one kind of device, while marketing one very specific gamer device to start with. if xbox can become a platform that is played on pc the same way steam is, as well as being a dedicated hardware that is purchased in store, that might be the sort of thing that could blindside the competition in the next generation and reach more people.

You have this oriented in a parabola shape, but I think it's more linear. The story of the Xbox brand since 2005 has been one of profitability. I really think we ascribe too much "personality" to the hardware manufacturers, talking about the "Phil Spencer Effect" or Shu tweets. I think the shift to "console for everyone" was more about reducing the absolutely aggressive pace at which they secured exclusives, developed partnerships, featured titles, and things like that. In other words, they had to find a way reduce their customer acquisition costs, which were very high (especially because they were forced to rip customers away from Sony, the leader last gen). Kinect is logically, to me, part of that (part of the ERA OF BIG SPENDING, which is why they were so happy to just write it off now). That's not to say that Sony hasn't done the same thing, though obviously they have to do that for different reasons.

Take your point about Rare and acknowledging the rich legacy of the some of the developers within the company. They get to put out Rare replay and it's a celebration of Rare's history, but last generation they got to work on a brand new AAA entry in one of their biggest franchises that was completely and totally separate from the games that came before it (illustrating that they had complete creative freedom). They also got to develop an entirely brand new transmedia IP in Viva Pinata. I don't know much about Sea of Thieves, so I'm not going to talk about it because ultimately we don't know what it will be like, but the story of Rare is clearly "doing more with way, way less" so far.

I think both manufacturers were looking at this generation as a chance to lick some wounds, a logical and necessary conclusion to what happened last generation and the generation before that.

Errrrybody just getting cheap. That cheapness just has a public face now and the face is so friendly. But everyone is far more conservative, far more focused around increasing their ARPU, etc. Shu has basically admitted WWS is making big budget AAA games or they're not making anything. There are some token efforts around the edges...like unlocking XBL non-gameplay features from XBL or getting rid of Online Passes at Sony-- but they basically had to do these things because they were key advantages of competitors and there was no more effective way to reduce acquisition costs.

edit: This also describes Nintendo, I think. They were certainly surprised by the costs of HD development and basically all of their profitability improvement in the last 2-3 years has come from dramatically slashing costs at the operating level. It's not a topline growth story anymore for any of these guys (well, maybe Sony).
 

SeanR1221

Member
Maybe there is just some confusion.

When people talk about third parties not supporting the last Nintendo console they mean ActivisionBlizzard, EA, Ubisoft, WBIE & T2.

They don't mean the independent developer Platinum Games being hired by Nintendo to make an aspect of their game.

The same Activision that just put out DK and Bowser skylander toys? ;)
 

Shin-chan

Member
The same Activision that just put out DK and Bowser skylander toys? ;)

But kids games have always come to Nintendo platforms and never left. I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. Skylanders is on the Wii U, for Christs sake. This didn't signal the coming of CoD and Destiny to Nintendo.
 

SeanR1221

Member
But kids games have always come to Nintendo platforms and never left. I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. Skylanders is on the Wii U, for Christs sake. This didn't signal the coming of CoD and Destiny to Nintendo.

I never said it did.

You're getting oddly angry over some minor speculation on what Nintendo could do in the future with the NX.
 
Ah, your perspective is interesting, but you're looking at it backwards! First, let's get to some answers to our discussion by asking some questions.

Why is the customer not there? Is the customer not there because your competitor is doing exceptionally well, or is the customer not there because your brand is unsatisfactory to them? Random, but does a reviewer's opinion carry more weight than the opinion of thousands of actual users?

It's easy to blame the customers for the mistakes of the business -- in fact, that's one of the first lines of defense for a failed product. "Our stuff was ahead of its time", "They just don't get it", "What more do they want?", etc. By doing this, you are effectively saying "Our stuff is perfectly fine as it is". Arrogance and ignorance are an extraordinarily dangerous combination in a business. When you can do no wrong then you can never improve, when you can never improve then you can never grow. If your business cannot grow then you are in biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig trouble.

The answer as to why Halo 5, Forza 6, and Rise of the Tomb Raider are high-profile failures isn't because the customer isn't there and is busy playing Knack. The answer as to why they're failures is because the Halo, Forza, and Tomb Raider brands have been damaged due to a number of severe miscalculations by the Xbox business.

You cannot forget the fundamental truth of branding: a brand is your identity! If your identity is tarnished then people will not want to interact with you. Let's start with the first-party stuff. The Masterchief Collection and Halo 4, part of the Halo brand, are the predecessors to Halo 5. Do you remember what people were saying about Halo 4 not feeling like a Halo game -- being a departure from Bungie's way of things? Since the Masterchief Collection is fairly recent, I'm going to assume you recall the large community outcry over the game not working? Forza 6, part of the Forza brand, is the successor to Forza 5 and Forza Horizon 2. You must remember what the reaction was to Forza 5 incorporating microtransactions? What about people saying Forza Horizon 2 was just like Forza Horizon 1 -- do you believe making the same game and expecting customer satisfaction is realistic?

Now let's talk about Rise of the Tomb Raider. Do you believe fans of the Tomb Raider brand were satisfied by the decision to turn Tomb Raider into Uncharted Lite? Do you think that Microsoft's decision to lock the Tomb Raider brand to their brand (for an unspecified amount of time [at the time]) was a decision that was met with open arms by the Tomb Raider community -- the very same community that showed up to support the last two multi-platform entries? Do you believe that positioning Rise of the Tomb Raider right next to Fallout 4 was a decision that inspired faith in Tomb Raider fans, or do you believe it was a decision that led to fans actually questioning if Microsoft was trying to kill the brand? Did Microsoft satisfy fans of the Tomb Raider brand by making the Tomb Raider bundle exclusive to one retailer?

News items, written articles, Vines, podcast impressions, threads on Neogaf: these are all points of contact between your brand and your customer. Nobody here is fooled by a Metacritic score: we all know what happened with the last Halo games, we all know what happened with the last Forza games, and we all know what happened with Rise of the Tomb Raider aka the worst example of affinity marketing since Haze on PS3. If people are turned off by the brand then they're out. If people who play the game don't like the game then they're out. We can either spend all day claiming the customer's didn't show up because they all went to PlayStation, or we can realize that there are millions of people with Xbox One's, and the reality is the customer's didn't show up because numerous miscalculations by Microsoft have left them unsatisfied with the respective brands.

Second, since this is an NPD thread, allow me to put out a sales-related question pertaining to the above discussion: Do you believe the PS4 version of RotTR will perform much better than the Xbox One version, given that your reasoning for the atrocious performance on Xbox is due to the much smaller installbase? Since the Xbox One installbase will be higher next year and beyond, do you believe Halo 6, Forza 7, and Fall of the Tomb Raider will do better in North America than Halo 5, Forza 6, and RotTR?

To tie this entire block of text back to my original prediction, I'll state what I believe is happening and what we'll see happen at the end of the generation. Hopefully the following can give you my perspective on what the released sales numbers mean. Globally, the Xbox One is a failed product that has hurt the Xbox brand. What's happening in regions outside of NA is that people are choosing to exclusively support the PS4 because due to a number of public and private miscalculations, the Xbox brand is now considered unfriendly to people who want to play videogames. This is just what I believe is happening. The effect of this is by the end of the generation, the Xbox brand equity is going to be in the toilet. The value of the Xbox brand to consumers is going to be lower than its ever been, and the value of Xbox hardware to Microsoft is going to be lower than the amount of hours spent trying to play Uncharted 4 on Xbox One. I think by the end of this generation, we're going to fully realize that the Xbox Two requires Sony to make PS3-era level of mistakes in order to have a shot. As always, anything can happen and I could be completely wrong in everything, but I have a feeling that the more deliberately convoluted press releases we get from Microsoft, the more we'll realize how badly Microsoft handled the Xbox brand this generation.

2flAIfM.gif
 

Shin-chan

Member
I never said it did.

You're getting oddly angry over some minor speculation on what Nintendo could do in the future with the NX.

I'm not angry, sorry if it sounded that way. It's just the things you're getting at are different to what everyone else is referring to when they talk about third parties abandoning/returning to Nintendo.
 

SeanR1221

Member
I'm not angry, sorry if it sounded that way. It's just the things you're getting at are different to what everyone else is referring to when they talk about third parties abandoning/returning to Nintendo.

Look, Im in total agreement that (western) third parties won't just flock to the NX and put their (typical) games on there. It wouldn't make sense because why would anyone buy an NX for those games when they can get a PS4/XB1 cheaper.

But when third parties talk about Nintendo, they usually reference sales failures having to do with either the audience not being there, or that they just can't compete with Nintendo themselves.

I'm not suggesting some giant, mass market, Zelda/assassins creed game, but maybe a small developer in EA would like a crack at Punch-Out...who knows? I mean, it's all speculation, so you're guess is as good as mine.
 

Shin-chan

Member
Look, Im in total agreement that (western) third parties won't just flock to the NX and put their (typical) games on there. It wouldn't make sense because why would anyone buy an NX for those games when they can get a PS4/XB1 cheaper.

But when third parties talk about Nintendo, they usually reference sales failures having to do with either the audience not being there, or that they just can't compete with Nintendo themselves.

I'm not suggesting some giant, mass market, Zelda/assassins creed game, but maybe a small developer in EA would like a crack at Punch-Out...who knows? I mean, it's all speculation, so you're guess is as good as mine.

I can see that happening, and I hope it does because Western publishers need to diversify their portfolios to attract younger audiences otherwise gaming might struggle to capture them later in life when they're at the age the market is now heavily focused on.

For the record I'll be getting the NX day one depending on the launch titles. That said I have virtually no interest in buying (non-Japanese) third party games for it.
 

small44

Member
Regarding my PS4 I'm more be interested in a PS4 Fat.



Doesn't XBOX One currently perform better than its 80+ million predecessor? Why wouldn't it reach at least 60+ million units at the end of its life cycle?

Because Microsoft was able to stole a big part of PS2 audience due to Sony mistake last gen.
PS4 is retaking those gamers.
I don't think like many other people that PS4 gen will be shorter then last gen.
 

SeanR1221

Member
I can see that happening, and I hope it does because Western publishers need to diversify their portfolios to attract younger audiences otherwise gaming might struggle to capture them later in life when they're at the age the market is now heavily focused on.

For the record I'll be getting the NX day one depending on the launch titles. That said I have virtually no interest in buying (non-Japanese) third party games for it.

Agreed on getting NX at launch. Nintendo has the most to lose so I find them the most exciting right now.

And sorry for accusing you of being upset, tone is hard to judge sometimes on here.
 

Kysen

Member
Until Nintendo beefs up their network infrastructure It doesn't matter what kinda hardware they put into the NX. There is a certain level of connectivity the PS/Xbox users expect from their consoles that to date Nintendo hasn't provided. If they are planning on getting up to 360 levels of connectivity then they are already behind.

The only way I see NX being a success is if they pull the Wii casuals back. Their current user base of Nintendo diehards is too small to support any kind of growth.
 
Wow, just caught up on the last few pages. Excellent discussion from all involved. Don't really have much to add however.

I will say that I don't see Scalebound in particular failing because it's a JRPG esque game. Unless you know who it's made by, it would be pretty easy to market that game as an open-world action game and hide all Platinum influences. The main characters name is Drew IIRC and none of the designs stand out really stand out. It's looks like a more western game then Sunset to be quite honest.

That's not to say it'll succeed. I just don't think the Platinum name or it being a JRPG on the XB1 will have anything to do it with. Unless it's marketed like that.
 

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
I think it's challenging to see the appeal of Scalebound over Tomb Raider, and we know how that did.
 

Rymuth

Member
That's not to say it'll succeed. I just don't think the Platinum name or it being a JRPG on the XB1 will have anything to do it with. Unless it's marketed like that.
They had Kamiya propped up on stage to play it during Gamescom (in spite of his wishes) ~ to me that makes it seem like they're planning to market it towards the Japanese game-playing fanbase.
 

N.Domixis

Banned
If sony doesn't mess up their launch xbox TWO will be in more trouble next gen. OTH, if sony messes up the cycle will repeat again.
 

prwxv3

Member
Just wait until scalebound is released next to the heavy hitters next fall. Sometimes I think MS only wanted some of these games for listwars. Tomb raider sure feels that way.
 

benny_a

extra source of jiggaflops
Just wait until scalebound is released next to the heavy hitters next fall. Sometimes I think MS only wanted some of these games for listwars. Tomb raider sure feels that way.
As long as they fund it like in the case of Scalebound it's okay if it's just for list wars and the people interested in the developer + genre combo.
 
Maybe my expectations were a bit too high, but I actually expected FO4 to do even better than that.

That is some kind of typo. It should probably read as 90% increase. We already have numbers for Fallout 4 (2.54 million) and they are way more than Fallout 3 did back in october 2008 (378k for X360 version and PS3 version didn't even chart in top 10).
 

prwxv3

Member
As long as they fund it like in the case of Scalebound it's okay if it's just for list wars and the people interested in the developer + genre combo.

While that is true they really should stop releasing these games in the fall where there is heavy competition. It still might not do great but it has a better chance.
 
I think it's challenging to see the appeal of Scalebound over Tomb Raider, and we know how that did.

Truth be told, I was thinking more along the lines of even lower sales figures if they market it as a Japanese game. Tomb Raider kinda seems like the best case scenario for me.

They had Kamiya propped up on stage to play it during Gamescom (in spite of his wishes) ~ to me that makes it seem like they're planning to market it towards the Japanese game-playing fanbase.

Yea, okay, that would be a pretty terrible idea.
 

Ushay

Member
I think it's challenging to see the appeal of Scalebound over Tomb Raider, and we know how that did.

They are very different games, with differing circumstances.

Tomb Raider was a timed (bought) exclusive, that angered , many many fans, along with shitty release timing, despite being a great game.
Scalebound is an entirely new IP and is being developed under different circumstances. Hopefully MS took a hint and will let it breathe.
 

Shin-chan

Member
They are very different games, with differing circumstances.

Tomb Raider was a timed (bought) exclusive, that angered , many many fans, along with shitty release timing, despite being a great game.
Scalebound is an entirely new IP and is being developed under different circumstances. Hopefully MS took a hint and will let it breathe.

I don't think the mass market cares about the circumstances of game development. And any way you slice it, Tomb Raiders November release date was a Microsoft stipulation. I hope they have the foresight to release Scalebound earlier, but if it isn't ready any earlier than the Holidays then I don't see them delaying it to early 2017 to give it space.
 

benny_a

extra source of jiggaflops
While that is true they really should stop releasing these games in the fall where there is heavy competition. It still might not do great but it has a better chance.
Personally I would want to see the game get as much time as possible. I hope this strategic release date nonsense will become a thing of the past.

Scalebound will not counter anything of importance even if we're probably going to see that meme on GAF in the future, so there is no need for some special time slot.
 

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
They are very different games, with differing circumstances.

Tomb Raider was a timed (bought) exclusive, that angered , many many fans, along with shitty release timing, despite being a great game.
Scalebound is an entirely new IP and is being developed under different circumstances. Hopefully MS took a hint and will let it breathe.

I don't think anyone cares that they bought an exclusive.
 
They are very different games, with differing circumstances.

Tomb Raider was a timed (bought) exclusive, that angered , many many fans, along with shitty release timing, despite being a great game.
Scalebound is an entirely new IP and is being developed under different circumstances. Hopefully MS took a hint and will let it breathe.

I think it's more so the perception that JRPGs don't matter, especially for the Xbox crowd. Hence part of the expected failure. Not to mention its Platinum games who, correct me if I am wrong, are not a big seller studio. Then you also have the PS4 being viewed as the home of JRPGs. If the mainstream couldn't care about the more mainstream of the two titles, why would you think they would care about Scalebound?
 
You have this oriented in a parabola shape, but I think it's more linear. The story of the Xbox brand since 2005 has been one of profitability. I really think we ascribe too much "personality" to the hardware manufacturers, talking about the "Phil Spencer Effect" or Shu tweets. I think the shift to "console for everyone" was more about reducing the absolutely aggressive pace at which they secured exclusives, developed partnerships, featured titles, and things like that. In other words, they had to find a way reduce their customer acquisition costs, which were very high (especially because they were forced to rip customers away from Sony, the leader last gen). Kinect is logically, to me, part of that (part of the ERA OF BIG SPENDING, which is why they were so happy to just write it off now). That's not to say that Sony hasn't done the same thing, though obviously they have to do that for different reasons.

Take your point about Rare and acknowledging the rich legacy of the some of the developers within the company. They get to put out Rare replay and it's a celebration of Rare's history, but last generation they got to work on a brand new AAA entry in one of their biggest franchises that was completely and totally separate from the games that came before it (illustrating that they had complete creative freedom). They also got to develop an entirely brand new transmedia IP in Viva Pinata. I don't know much about Sea of Thieves, so I'm not going to talk about it because ultimately we don't know what it will be like, but the story of Rare is clearly "doing more with way, way less" so far.

I think both manufacturers were looking at this generation as a chance to lick some wounds, a logical and necessary conclusion to what happened last generation and the generation before that.

Errrrybody just getting cheap. That cheapness just has a public face now and the face is so friendly. But everyone is far more conservative, far more focused around increasing their ARPU, etc. Shu has basically admitted WWS is making big budget AAA games or they're not making anything. There are some token efforts around the edges...like unlocking XBL non-gameplay features from XBL or getting rid of Online Passes at Sony-- but they basically had to do these things because they were key advantages of competitors and there was no more effective way to reduce acquisition costs.

edit: This also describes Nintendo, I think. They were certainly surprised by the costs of HD development and basically all of their profitability improvement in the last 2-3 years has come from dramatically slashing costs at the operating level. It's not a topline growth story anymore for any of these guys (well, maybe Sony).

Well in Nintendo's case, they can't be conservative w/ NX and expect it to be successful. It's odd to consider that they'll have to be as cost-pushing as Microsoft and Sony were last gen if they really want the NX and QoL things to work (not saying they have to spend equivalent amounts of money, just that they'll have to be equally as bold), when they should have done that then instead of now, given the things they'll have to accomplish w/ NX in 2016 are magnitudes more complex than what they'd have to of accomplish w/ an NX in 2012 or 2006.

And I'm framing it that way b/c to me it seems like NX is sounding like Nintendo giving a genuine effort to continue what they know best, and at least on paper is sounding closer to a visionary followup to N64 and Gamecube (in regards what they want it to do for third party relations, attracting core games and satisfying the Nintendo faithful while expanding the appeal of their core franchises to net in new players) than the Wii or Wii U ever displayed, so if they had just came to this realization earlier, they wouldn't really be in the boat they're in right now.

Truth be told, I was thinking more along the lines of even lower sales figures if they market it as a Japanese game. Tomb Raider kinda seems like the best case scenario for me.

Dunno. I mean, the main char still has some annoying cliche'd lines, but I recently checked out the new footage and was very impressed. Not quite a PD Saga spiritual sequel (for lots of reasons), but it's the closest we're probably gonna get, so for that alone it's more appealing to me personally than ROTR ever was. ROTR isn't vastly different from a lot of the other "epic" SP action/adventure games out there, and at least UnCharted has humor on its side.

And this isn't me saying in any capacity ROTR is a bad game, especially b/c of its setting or genre. The game seems legit great going by what most others have said. But for me personally, it's not an "OMG gotta get an XBO for this" kind of game, and Scalebound would fall closer into that spectrum. Then again I'm one of the few who truly does use exclusives to gauge a system's worth and purchasing intent, so there's that :/
 

BokehKing

Banned
They are very different games, with differing circumstances.

Tomb Raider was a timed (bought) exclusive, that angered , many many fans, along with shitty release timing, despite being a great game.
Scalebound is an entirely new IP and is being developed under different circumstances. Hopefully MS took a hint and will let it breathe.
We can't have it both ways, either we are the majority or the minority

I don't think the casual market knows or cares about the tomb raider marketing deal, there can just be general lack of interest in the title
 
No. But Nintendo fans tend to be a special breed. They never let trivial things like "official announcements" and "facts" get in the way of creating unrealistic expectations.

Honestly, between all of the assumptions that 3rd parties are going to magically start caring about Nintendo home consoles again, to the unabashed claims that NX will compete with or even exceed XB1 and PS4 specs based on nothing but hopes and dreams, it's actually becoming quite tiring.
 

Kleegamefan

K. LEE GAIDEN
You need to think about what that means, EA isn't going to release a Battlefront on the NX if it doesn't have online features that can facilitate season passes and the like, Rockstar definitely isn't going to release a GTA on NX if it still use DVD's, hell they may even guarantee not having FFVIIR on the system if it can't run Unreal Engine 4.

Then you look at people not buying said games on the system because they're either a)Late and still full priced. or b)Missing features that are prevelant on other systems and still charged full price anyway, and we end up with a self fulfilling prophecy.

Now will Nintendo making a console comparable to the PS4ONE in specs automatically fix that.... There's a chance, a better chance than no chance than what happened with the WiiU, whose third party support dried up in absolution when 3rd party devs moved onto the "next generation" in terms of PS4ONE games.


NX will almost certainly support Unreal Engine 4. Dragon Quest XI, the first ever announced NX game, runs on UE4
 
I don't think you understood my post.

Instead of bringing typical third party games to third parties, third parties could use one of nintendo franchises and make a game on the NX.

Problem being it will be nintendo exclusive. And will it be free to do it, or will they have to pay nintendo to use their IP. Is the resource for making an exclusive NX game a better use for the resources than making a ps/xbox/pc multiplat?
 
Ah, your perspective is interesting, but you're looking at it backwards! First, let's get to some answers to our discussion by asking some questions.

Why is the customer not there? Is the customer not there because your competitor is doing exceptionally well, or is the customer not there because your brand is unsatisfactory to them? Random, but does a reviewer's opinion carry more weight than the opinion of thousands of actual users?

It's easy to blame the customers for the mistakes of the business -- in fact, that's one of the first lines of defense for a failed product. "Our stuff was ahead of its time", "They just don't get it", "What more do they want?", etc. By doing this, you are effectively saying "Our stuff is perfectly fine as it is". Arrogance and ignorance are an extraordinarily dangerous combination in a business. When you can do no wrong then you can never improve, when you can never improve then you can never grow. If your business cannot grow then you are in biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig trouble.

The answer as to why Halo 5, Forza 6, and Rise of the Tomb Raider are high-profile failures isn't because the customer isn't there and is busy playing Knack. The answer as to why they're failures is because the Halo, Forza, and Tomb Raider brands have been damaged due to a number of severe miscalculations by the Xbox business.

You cannot forget the fundamental truth of branding: a brand is your identity! If your identity is tarnished then people will not want to interact with you. Let's start with the first-party stuff. The Masterchief Collection and Halo 4, part of the Halo brand, are the predecessors to Halo 5. Do you remember what people were saying about Halo 4 not feeling like a Halo game -- being a departure from Bungie's way of things? Since the Masterchief Collection is fairly recent, I'm going to assume you recall the large community outcry over the game not working? Forza 6, part of the Forza brand, is the successor to Forza 5 and Forza Horizon 2. You must remember what the reaction was to Forza 5 incorporating microtransactions? What about people saying Forza Horizon 2 was just like Forza Horizon 1 -- do you believe making the same game and expecting customer satisfaction is realistic?

Now let's talk about Rise of the Tomb Raider. Do you believe fans of the Tomb Raider brand were satisfied by the decision to turn Tomb Raider into Uncharted Lite? Do you think that Microsoft's decision to lock the Tomb Raider brand to their brand (for an unspecified amount of time [at the time]) was a decision that was met with open arms by the Tomb Raider community -- the very same community that showed up to support the last two multi-platform entries? Do you believe that positioning Rise of the Tomb Raider right next to Fallout 4 was a decision that inspired faith in Tomb Raider fans, or do you believe it was a decision that led to fans actually questioning if Microsoft was trying to kill the brand? Did Microsoft satisfy fans of the Tomb Raider brand by making the Tomb Raider bundle exclusive to one retailer?

News items, written articles, Vines, podcast impressions, threads on Neogaf: these are all points of contact between your brand and your customer. Nobody here is fooled by a Metacritic score: we all know what happened with the last Halo games, we all know what happened with the last Forza games, and we all know what happened with Rise of the Tomb Raider aka the worst example of affinity marketing since Haze on PS3. If people are turned off by the brand then they're out. If people who play the game don't like the game then they're out. We can either spend all day claiming the customer's didn't show up because they all went to PlayStation, or we can realize that there are millions of people with Xbox One's, and the reality is the customer's didn't show up because numerous miscalculations by Microsoft have left them unsatisfied with the respective brands.

Second, since this is an NPD thread, allow me to put out a sales-related question pertaining to the above discussion: Do you believe the PS4 version of RotTR will perform much better than the Xbox One version, given that your reasoning for the atrocious performance on Xbox is due to the much smaller installbase? Since the Xbox One installbase will be higher next year and beyond, do you believe Halo 6, Forza 7, and Fall of the Tomb Raider will do better in North America than Halo 5, Forza 6, and RotTR?

To tie this entire block of text back to my original prediction, I'll state what I believe is happening and what we'll see happen at the end of the generation. Hopefully the following can give you my perspective on what the released sales numbers mean. Globally, the Xbox One is a failed product that has hurt the Xbox brand. What's happening in regions outside of NA is that people are choosing to exclusively support the PS4 because due to a number of public and private miscalculations, the Xbox brand is now considered unfriendly to people who want to play videogames. This is just what I believe is happening. The effect of this is by the end of the generation, the Xbox brand equity is going to be in the toilet. The value of the Xbox brand to consumers is going to be lower than its ever been, and the value of Xbox hardware to Microsoft is going to be lower than the amount of hours spent trying to play Uncharted 4 on Xbox One. I think by the end of this generation, we're going to fully realize that the Xbox Two requires Sony to make PS3-era level of mistakes in order to have a shot. As always, anything can happen and I could be completely wrong in everything, but I have a feeling that the more deliberately convoluted press releases we get from Microsoft, the more we'll realize how badly Microsoft handled the Xbox brand this generation.
I think you make a good point. Great point, even. While I think we can both agree there are instances where failed consoles truly are undeserved in that failure going by the merits of their game library (e.g Dreamcast, Wii U to a noticeably lesser extent), what's happening w/ XBO isn't exactly one of those cases. I would say that MS has been too safe in pushing the software envelope so far, and part of the reason is because they are still foolishly thinking they can compete directly w/ PS4 on similar strengths and win. They can't. PS4 is objectively more powerful in terms of horsepower, and has the mindshare with most of the big genres and big franchises out there. And it's just part of a much stronger brand family.

So since that truth hasn't hit them yet, they haven't done what Sony ended up having to do w/ the PS3 in terms of diversifying their big software lineup. They've taken baby steps w/ stuff like Ori and the upcoming Cuphead, but those are literally countable on one hand. XBO needs to accept that it's always going to be in PS4's shadow, and the best way to stand out is to offer 1st/2nd-party content that unique from the competition. And right now, Sony on average has been beating them, and seems continuing to do so in 2016.

Will admit tho that Quantum Break and Cuphead are looking very interesting, and Scalebound recently jumped on my radar too. So slowly, they might be getting there, and all of this will ultimately benefit the XBO-2, whatever that happens to be, once the time for that comes (and assuming they don't screw it up in any major way).
 

Bgamer90

Banned
The answer as to why Halo 5, Forza 6, and Rise of the Tomb Raider are high-profile failures isn't because the customer isn't there and is busy playing Knack. The answer as to why they're failures is because the Halo, Forza, and Tomb Raider brands have been damaged due to a number of severe miscalculations by the Xbox business.

I feel that multiplatform games playing a far bigger role in terms of why people are buying these consoles (in comparison to last gen) is the main reason why those three games didn't do as well as some predicted.

Let's start with the first-party stuff. The Masterchief Collection and Halo 4, part of the Halo brand, are the predecessors to Halo 5. Do you remember what people were saying about Halo 4 not feeling like a Halo game -- being a departure from Bungie's way of things? Since the Masterchief Collection is fairly recent, I'm going to assume you recall the large community outcry over the game not working?

It's true that Halo 4 and MCC hurt the Halo brand but as I said above, there are far more options to choose from in terms of shooters in comparison to how things were back in 2007. Halo 4 sold well mainly due the Xbox 360 user base being large. I would go as far as to say that since 2009, COD has been a more popular part of the Xbox brand than Halo (even though its multiplatform). While I expected Halo 5 to have a bigger launch, I never expected the game to do as well as the Xbox 360 mainline Halo games. Too many things have changed in its gaming genre on consoles since then.

Forza 6, part of the Forza brand, is the successor to Forza 5 and Forza Horizon 2. You must remember what the reaction was to Forza 5 incorporating microtransactions?

Forza 6 is just the successor to Forza 5. It's not the successor to Horizon 2. Forza 5 did get flack due to micro-transactions but I wouldn't put that as the reason why Forza 6 did not do well in North America. Sim racing simply isn't a big genre here and therefore people don't see the need in buying multiple sim racers. Forza 5 benefited from being a launch title. People who wanted a "racer" alongside their new console bought the game. People who aren't big into sim racing aren't going to see the need in buying another sim racer so soon.

What about people saying Forza Horizon 2 was just like Forza Horizon 1 -- do you believe making the same game and expecting customer satisfaction is realistic?

Who said this as a negative? People were saying this a positive trait due to them liking Forza Horizon 1. The game definitely wasn't a rehash. Forza Horizon 2 made a ton of improvements while not ruining what made many people enjoy the first Horizon.

Again, the low sales are simply due to the Xbox One having a huge portion of its overall sales in America and the racing genre in America becoming more niche. Call of Duty and various sports titles get a ton of actual negative criticism from being "just like last year's game" yet many of those series are doing better than they did earlier this gen and are helping Xbox and Playstation sales far more than any exclusives.

Now let's talk about Rise of the Tomb Raider. Do you believe fans of the Tomb Raider brand were satisfied by the decision to turn Tomb Raider into Uncharted Lite? Do you think that Microsoft's decision to lock the Tomb Raider brand to their brand (for an unspecified amount of time [at the time]) was a decision that was met with open arms by the Tomb Raider community -- the very same community that showed up to support the last two multi-platform entries? Do you believe that positioning Rise of the Tomb Raider right next to Fallout 4 was a decision that inspired faith in Tomb Raider fans, or do you believe it was a decision that led to fans actually questioning if Microsoft was trying to kill the brand? Did Microsoft satisfy fans of the Tomb Raider brand by making the Tomb Raider bundle exclusive to one retailer?

Now this? I completely agree with. Poor decisions all around.

To tie this entire block of text back to my original prediction, I'll state what I believe is happening and what we'll see happen at the end of the generation... The effect of this is by the end of the generation, the Xbox brand equity is going to be in the toilet. The value of the Xbox brand to consumers is going to be lower than its ever been, and the value of Xbox hardware to Microsoft is going to be lower than the amount of hours spent trying to play Uncharted 4 on Xbox One.

This is completely overboard. As long as the brand continues to do well with AAA multiplatform games and gets more exclusives and features, then it will still have relevancy in the home console space.

I think by the end of this generation, we're going to fully realize that the Xbox Two requires Sony to make PS3-era level of mistakes in order to have a shot. As always, anything can happen and I could be completely wrong in everything, but I have a feeling that the more deliberately convoluted press releases we get from Microsoft, the more we'll realize how badly Microsoft handled the Xbox brand this generation.

They definitely made mistakes this generation but statements like this is far more fitting for Nintendo's current position in the home console space than Xbox's. Microsoft still has strong ties with AAA third party companies (unlike Nintendo) and these companies are making the top selling games on both the PS4 and Xbox One. The Xbox Two will always "have a shot" as long as this remains true.
 

Bgamer90

Banned
Top Bottom