Topic: Bad Tales of Symphonia news

[kovu_br]

Q]The reason why it sold as much as it did in JPN is because they have 10 billion (exagerated) RPG's out there for PS2. Almost too many RPGs there. Its an issue of "more of the same" even though it shouldn't be. You are also comparing 2 systems with about a 10X difference in userbase. So 300k vs 800k isn't that bad in relation. Also that is a series (Eternia) more familiar to the Playstation owners. Whereas the games before in the Symphonia line have been mostly Nintendo based. The Japanese love their RPGs, and where are the buttload of rpgs in JPN?? On PS2.

300k vs 800k is bad, because game developers don't get money based on the ratio "units solds/user base", so even if a game reaches, say, 20% of all Cube users by selling 300k but only 5% of all PS2 owners by selling 800k for Namco it's still more profitable to release the game for the PS2. It's all about units sold.

...Before anyone says anything, I made those numbers up to illustrate a point, so they're probably inaccurate.

Quote
They haven't even announced it yet for the US, so it's a good possibility the enhanced PS2 port is only meant for Japan, like many other enhanced versions like Kingdom Hearts Final Mix and Final Fantasy X-2 Last Mission. From a fanboyish point of view just look at the bright side. IF they'll release it, you're going to get it way sooner and the PS2 version won't likely look as bright and pretty as the GCN version.[

It's not the same thing - KH Final Mix and FFX-2 Last Mission are both PS2 games like KH and FFX-2, so you're basically trying to sell version 1.1 of a game to an audience that already has version 1.0. Meanwhile releasing the PS2 ToS will open a whole new potential market to the game, as there are several people who would like to play it but are not willing to buy a Cube just for that.

From a business standpoint Namco is doing the right thing (Why not release a RPG to the console with the highest number of RPG aficionados?), but that doesn't mean I have to like that...

[mouse_clicker]

Quote
300k vs 800k is bad, because game developers don't get money based on the ratio "units solds/user base", so even if a game reaches, say, 20% of all Cube users by selling 300k but only 5% of all PS2 owners by selling 800k for Namco it's still more profitable to release the game for the PS2. It's all about units sold.

Using that logic, every game made this generation should be on the PS2 and probably just the PS2. Of COURSE games will sell better on the console with the biggest user base- if developers only looked at units sold and not proportional units sold we'd end up with a one-console industry again, complete with all the joys and wonders you've come to expect from a monopoly!

[KDR_11k]

They don't look at proportional units. They are just trying to keep multiple consoles alive. A monopoly is bad for them since it means the manufacturer gets to apply iron fist policies (which Sony already does). At least that was the word from Capcom.

[kovu_br]

Quote
Using that logic, every game made this generation should be on the PS2 and probably just the PS2. Of COURSE games will sell better on the console with the biggest user base- if developers only looked at units sold and not proportional units sold we'd end up with a one-console industry again, complete with all the joys and wonders you've come to expect from a monopoly!

Yes, using that logic every game should be released on the PS2 (Not just on it, as ports open new markets to a game, and that's a good thing) - And frankly, can you honestly say that's not happening right now? Other than very big companies like Capcom, Tecmo and Sega (Who can afford to let their top game creators choose whatever console they want to develop for every once in a while) every other developer is, in fact, looking just at units sold. And that's just common business sense, as their immediate concern isn't to prevent a monopoly, but to regain the money invested in the making of a game.

That's why the PS2 and the X-Box get most of the releases. Why did the PS2 got Disgaea? Because it has the largest potential TRPG fanbase. Why did the X-Box get Breakdown? Because it has the largest potential FPS fanbase. Why did the Gamecube get Resident Evil 4? Because Mikami doesn't like the PS2, not because that type of game seels better on the Cube.

I'm not saying I like that logic, but it's undeniable that close to 90% of all game developers follow it.

 

[mouse_clicker]

Heh, Sega can afford to give consoles exclusives? Sega dropped out of the console business because they were billions of dollars in debt, and still lost money for a while as a 3rd party. It wasn't until recently that they started turning a profit, and I guarantee you that debt is still very much there. Sega can hardly afford to give consoles exclusives. Look at the sales, though- it's the exclusive games that sell the best (the only real exception being Madden NFL)- Halo, GTA3, Vice City, Final Fantasy, Zelda, Mario. My point is that if companies ONLY look at total sales, every game should be on the PS2 and probably the PS2 alone, yet that doesn't happen because that logic doesn't work. You can't look at JUST the sales figures, because if you do you end up with a one console industry (as I said), which in turn leads to a monopoly.  

[kovu_br]

Quote
Heh, Sega can afford to give consoles exclusives? Sega dropped out of the console business because they were billions of dollars in debt, and still lost money for a while as a 3rd party. It wasn't until recently that they started turning a profit, and I guarantee you that debt is still very much there. Sega can hardly afford to give consoles exclusives. Look at the sales, though- it's the exclusive games that sell the best (the only real exception being Madden NFL)- Halo, GTA3, Vice City, Final Fantasy, Zelda, Mario. My point is that if companies ONLY look at total sales, every game should be on the PS2 and probably the PS2 alone, yet that doesn't happen because that logic doesn't work. You can't look at JUST the sales figures, because if you do you end up with a one console industry (as I said), which in turn leads to a monopoly.

Sega got pretty cocky after they went 3rd party, and decided that the best course of action would be to attach certain franchises to certain consoles, and as a result it still lost money. Now they're making money again, by releasing most of their games for the PS2 and releasing certain proven franchises for all 3. That's a pretty strong example of why the "numbers make games" logic work.

Games like Halo, GTA3, Vice City and Zelda don't sell well because they're exclusive - They sell well because they're good. But I guarantee you that no matter how well Knights of the Republic sold on the Box it would have sold even better on the PS2, and that's why smaller game companies choose it as their plataform of choice. Zelda and Mario sell well on the Cube because they're the reason most people buy Nintendo consoles, but strip them of their names and legacy and I bet they wouldn't sell as well on it no matter how good they are - The Gamecube has proven quite a few times that non-franchise games aren't that viable on it while the PS2 market has been more receptive to them (Not by much, but still they sell better on it).

Game developers, like all business, live and breath by the botton line. Meaning that it's money that keeps them alive, so if they don't look at total sales (Which reflect how much money they can make in return to their investiment) to decide which console to support then at what do they look at? Why are most japanese developers releasing games for the PS2? Do I think the fact that of the 10 best selling games in Japan 9 are PS2 games has anything to do with that? Do I think that the fact that whenever a game hits the 3 consoles the PS2 version usually sells much more than the other two has anything to do with that? Yes, I sure do.

If game developers didn't look at units sold, you'd be seeing much more support from japanese developers for the X-Box and much more mature games on the Gamecube.

[mouse_clicker]

You raise some good points, but I guarantee that all the examples I used as good selling games would sell much worse were they multiplatform. Look at us as Nintendo fans! A lot of us don't even consider games that aren't exclusive. Besides that, exclusive games generally turn out better since the developer's resources are not being spread over multiple platforms- when they can focus on just one the game almost always turns out better, although that varies, of course. And I'm not saying developers should IGNORE straight sales, just that they shouldn't ignore proportional sales- I believe the opposite is true as well.

[kovu_br]

Quote
You raise some good points, but I guarantee that all the examples I used as good selling games would sell much worse were they multiplatform. Look at us as Nintendo fans! A lot of us don't even consider games that aren't exclusive. Besides that, exclusive games generally turn out better since the developer's resources are not being spread over multiple platforms- when they can focus on just one the game almost always turns out better, although that varies, of course. And I'm not saying developers should IGNORE straight sales, just that they shouldn't ignore proportional sales- I believe the opposite is true as well.

The sad truth about today's game market is that the fans account for very little market share compared to the casual gamers, so even though some fans may refuse to buy a port if the game interests Casual Joe he will buy it.

Casual Joe doesn't want to buy a new console for each game he wants to play, so most stick to games for the console they already own, and that's where the PS2 allure lies for developers. It has the most diverse userbase, so if you throw a game at them it has a bigger chance to hit a group that will like it.

And another reason most exclusive games you mentioned sold well was because they were targeted at the right audience: Halo benefited from Microsoft's marketing money and from being the must own of the X-Box's launch, plus most of it's audience consisted initially of PC gamers, so FPS has a big appeal for them. GT3 was released for the console with the largest number of sport fans. Final Fantasy X was released for the largest RPG fanbase. You get the picture...

But I still think games like GTAIII, KotOR or Devil May Cry would have sold better if they weren't exclusives. And I don't think a game like Prince of Persia or Beyond Good & Evil would have benefited from exclusivity.

As a gamer I obviously prefer developers to make games from the ground up to a certain plataform - as you said, they tend to look better, play better and sound better as well. All I'm saying is that even though as a gamer I like that philosophy, if I had stocks of a game company I would want it to focus on the safest market, and a cruel peculiarity of the gaming business is that not only is the PS2 the safest market but it's also the most profitable...

...OK, it's late here and I'm getting sleepy. I'm out of here.

[KDR_11k]

However, in a saturated market even good games on the largest platform can fail. I've read an article of underrated games, many of which were on PS2 and released right next to a really big seller (e.g. RPGs close to Final Fantasy, etc). As you can see from Soul Calibur 2, if there is no competition to speak of your game will sell much better. Tales of Symphonia should have a similar advantage on the GC. Heh, would be funny if the GC version outsold the PS2 version because some big name title (let's say GTA: San Andreas or Final Fantasy XII, for the japanese market maybe another Dragon Quest) gets released on PS2...

As for Sega, they're determining target platforms with a blindfold and a dartboard.

BTW, if you're going with attachment rates SSBM sold about as well as GTAVC.

[kovu_br]

You know, it's funny how a good night of sleep can open your eyes...

Quote
And I don't think a game like Prince of Persia or Beyond Good & Evil would have benefited from exclusivity.

That is a lie. I realise now that yesterday I was looking at things from a very simple minded black and white point of view.

Exclusivity can indeed benefit certain games since console makers tend to market them much more effectively. Look at games like Sudeki and Killzone, I doubt they would be getting this much attention if not for Microsoft and Sony hyping them to hell and back.

A game like Ninja Gaiden probably benefited from being a X-Box exclusive as well.

Quote
However, in a saturated market even good games on the largest platform can fail. I've read an article of underrated games, many of which were on PS2 and released right next to a really big seller (e.g. RPGs close to Final Fantasy, etc). As you can see from Soul Calibur 2, if there is no competition to speak of your game will sell much better. Tales of Symphonia should have a similar advantage on the GC. Heh, would be funny if the GC version outsold the PS2 version because some big name title (let's say GTA: San Andreas or Final Fantasy XII, for the japanese market maybe another Dragon Quest) gets released on PS2...

Of course releasing a game next to a heavy hitter will hurt your sales, but that's not a reason to release it for a different plataform, it's a reason to delay your game.

The reason why Soul Calibur 2 sold so well on the Cube isn't due to the plataform's lack of fighting games, it was because Link was featured as a guest character. It appealed to the Zelda fanbase, not to the fighting fanbase.

And I hope said advantage helps ToS in the NGC, but I don't know if it will be able to reach past the small base of RPG fans in the console. I still maintain that it has a better chance of succeeding in the PS2 as long as they do'nt release it next to Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest, of course.

Quote
BTW, if you're going with attachment rates SSBM sold about as well as GTAVC.

Given how the SSB series has a rabid fanbase in Japan and stars some of the most well-known game characters in the world it's not that surprising that it sold so well. The surprise was how GTA III sold so well, seeing how GTA and GTA2 were hardly system sellers, but that does prove that word of mouth, hype and controversy can be very powerful marketing tools.