Topic: Official Sales Thread

[Kairon]

KDR's right.  When you have a game like MGS4 which has a forced 8 minute load time between chapters, you'd have to be nuts to think that if it were any other game, it would have got reamed in every review.  It's no surprise that the most hyped games get the higher scores.  Makes you wonder what kind of sweet deal they are getting in their PR packages.

The Golden Age of reviews is over.  Nobody trusts them, especially when they are so open about their biases against the majority.  It'll be a while before the Wii Revolution sets up a new generation of gamers raised on Wii who become journalists and start their reviews.  In the meantime, reviewers who openly rag on Wii games like Wii Sports are just like those Amiga fanboys who ragged on Super Mario Bros.  Nobody who played the NES in 1986 gave a care about the Amiga or the Atari ST, nor did they care much about their supporters opinion of them.

Which is why using reviews as a measure of quality in this tumultuous time is a rather odd metric.

I'm sure every reviewer thinks that they are fair and unbiased... I know I like to think I am... *sigh*

[GoldenPhoenix]

KDR's right.  When you have a game like MGS4 which has a forced 8 minute load time between chapters, you'd have to be nuts to think that if it were any other game, it would have got reamed in every review.  It's no surprise that the most hyped games get the higher scores.  Makes you wonder what kind of sweet deal they are getting in their PR packages.

The Golden Age of reviews is over.  Nobody trusts them, especially when they are so open about their biases against the majority.  It'll be a while before the Wii Revolution sets up a new generation of gamers raised on Wii who become journalists and start their reviews.  In the meantime, reviewers who openly rag on Wii games like Wii Sports are just like those Amiga fanboys who ragged on Super Mario Bros.  Nobody who played the NES in 1986 gave a care about the Amiga or the Atari ST, nor did they care much about their supporters opinion of them.

Which is why using reviews as a measure of quality in this tumultuous time is a rather odd metric.

I'm sure every reviewer thinks that they are fair and unbiased... I know I like to think I am... *sigh*

Which is why GTAIV and MGSIV get perfect 10s.

[DAaaMan64]

It's all an anti-Nintendo conspiracy.  Trust no one.

And he wonders why people get rude with him...

Interesting how bad WiiMusic is doing...

[EasyCure]

KDR's right.  When you have a game like MGS4 which has a forced 8 minute load time between chapters, you'd have to be nuts to think that if it were any other game, it would have got reamed in every review.  It's no surprise that the most hyped games get the higher scores.  Makes you wonder what kind of sweet deal they are getting in their PR packages.

The Golden Age of reviews is over.  Nobody trusts them, especially when they are so open about their biases against the majority.  It'll be a while before the Wii Revolution sets up a new generation of gamers raised on Wii who become journalists and start their reviews.  In the meantime, reviewers who openly rag on Wii games like Wii Sports are just like those Amiga fanboys who ragged on Super Mario Bros.  Nobody who played the NES in 1986 gave a care about the Amiga or the Atari ST, nor did they care much about their supporters opinion of them.

Which is why using reviews as a measure of quality in this tumultuous time is a rather odd metric.

I'm sure every reviewer thinks that they are fair and unbiased... I know I like to think I am... *sigh*

To be fair, Kairon, no ones read your review for Six Flags Fun Park DS.

Nor does anyone care to.

just kidding buddy, we love you

[NWR_Lindy]

And he wonders why people get rude with him...

Interesting how bad WiiMusic is doing...

I just don't think that there's some huge media bias against Nintendo; I think there's a media bias against mediocre and bad games.  Did Wii Sports, Wii Fit, Brawl, Mario Kart, Metroid Prime 3, Galaxy, and Okami get bad reviews?  Heck no, because they're awesome games no matter how you cut it.  Why did Wii Music gets skewered by the press?  Because it lacks depth, and frankly isn't as innovative and groundbreaking as people expect from Nintendo, and it has a crappy music selection to boot.  Period.  That's it.  Game reviewers ultimately appreciate excellently executed game design.  Whether that's Tetris Party, Fallout 3, Peggle, Wii Fit, or Gears of War 2, it doesn't matter.  There are many games on the Wii that don't do that, whether they sell or not.  You can't expect game reviewers that are appreciative of good game design to reward something like Carnival Games.  It may sell out the ass, but that doesn't mean it's a well-designed game.

Maybe somebody should start a website that doles out review scores based on sales figures.  It seems like that's what some people respect these days.

[Kairon]

Didn't Wii Sports get sort of across the board 7.0s? I think for this generation's killer app, there's something wonky going on there.

[oohhboy]

OI. I read his reviews. If nothing else to watch him suffer.

[Chozo Ghost]

Why are we kidding ourselves? Wii Sports is only as popular as it is because it is bundled. Do you think as many people would have spent $49, or even $29 on it if it were a separate game? Sure, some people would have, but not the many millions we're seeing now (well, unless they bundled a peripheral with it, ala Wii Play).

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Millions in Japan did.

Millions.

[KDR_11k]

If it wasn't bundled you'd see fewer Wii sales.

[White Mage]

Why are we kidding ourselves? Wii Sports is only as popular as it is because it is bundled. Do you think as many people would have spent $49, or even $29 on it if it were a separate game? Sure, some people would have, but not the many millions we're seeing now (well, unless they bundled a peripheral with it, ala Wii Play).

I don't know for sure.  When I got my Wii at launch and brought it home over Christmas break to play, demonstrating Wii sports to some of my cousins, aunts, and uncles was the very reason they went out to get one for Christmas that year (or shortly after if they had trouble finding it).  I think 4 or 5 of my family members purchased a Wii because of that.  I really do believe that they would have also bought Wii Sports if it was not included because they were so enthralled with the title (well, maybe except for one of my aunts who only bought a Wii to play Twilight Princess - she's obsessed).

Now, the question is, would I have bought Wii Sports at launch if it wasn't bundled, which in turn persuaded my family to buy Wii's for themselves?  Probably not...

[Kenology]

Hardware
Hardware | This Week | Last Week | Last 4 Weeks |    YTD    |    LTD   
DS+      |   114,036 |   107,423 |      423,623 | 3,103,426 | 24,276,480
PSP      |    55,090 |    61,226 |      198,195 | 3,301,982 | 10,967,059

Hmmm... Looks like the PSP just might not manage to outsell the DS this year after all.  This will be fun to watch.

[NWR_Lindy]

If it wasn't bundled you'd see fewer Wii sales.

I think this is 100% true.  Wii Sports is probably not enough of a "killer app" to do big numbers as a standalone title, but bundled with the Wii it's pure gold.

[Deguello]

I just don't think that there's some huge media bias against Nintendo

Neither do I.  The "press" generally loves Nintendo.  It's the games press that's a little iffy about them.  If you don't believe me, go back and read stuff most of them (and us) wrote about the Wii.  And do the same about the DS.  They were both reviled as "gimmicks" and such.  Now just think about that for a second.  If you were some new gamer, or even a middle-information vet, or a pretty hardcore Nintendo fan, and say, 1up just called the DS "the next Virtual Boy" or the Wii "Phamily Phun Waggle Phests," would you really trust any judgment they pass on DS or Wii games?  They've mellowed a bit since then, mainly due to the "don't piss off the majority too much if you don't want your magazine to die" rule, but it's still there, under the surface.

Reviews are very useful when all consoles are similar, like the SNES and Genesis, and the PS2, Xbox, and GC.  But since the DS and Wii are so "at odds" with the rest of the industry they are dominating, reviews based on old checklists just don't have as much weight.    And I'm not saying that reviewers can't ever gain that trust back, because they had it in 2004 and 2006.  They'll just have to work harder to understand what readers expect in a review to make up for the readers they lost when they painted all of them with broad strokes and patronizingly condescended to.

And when there are confirmed stories about review-buying through games like Kane and Lynch, is it possible that this happens with games that maybe deserve high scores?  Can we ever really be sure a game got what it deserved?  Say what you want about sales numbers, at least they are objective.  Now of course I'm not saying sales numbers are the only metric and we should all just scan the charts for quality, but when the game buying populace vehemently disagrees with reviewers, something is amiss and it's not just the "casual gamer" business again.

Reviews in more equivalent times would be a good thing to use.  But when the console that is dominating is so "ideologically different" than the console that is losing, it's just hard to believe reviewers are objective, especially when they've previously shown animosity towards one.

[GoldenPhoenix]

I don't know how many times I've read in a games review about Wii game X not having HD and how it compares to a 360/PS3 title. If this isn't some sort of bias, I don't know what is.

[SalesBot]

Courtesy of Chart Get!
>








Based on the latest Famitsu hardware numbers...
PSP comparisons: After 207 weeks, PSP is where PS2 was at 154.6 weeks (February 13, 2003), where DS was at 92.0 weeks (September 3, 2006), and where GBA was at 140.2 weeks (November 24, 2003).

X360 comparisons: After 155 weeks, X360 is where GCN was at 15.1 weeks (December 24, 2001), where PS3 was at 19.7 weeks (March 23, 2007), and where Wii was at 4.1 weeks (December 25, 2006).

PS3 comparisons: After 107 weeks, PS3 is where PS2 was at 23.9 weeks (August 12, 2000), where PSP was at 54.6 weeks (December 22, 2005), where GCN was at 109.3 weeks (October 14, 2003), and where Wii was at 25.9 weeks (May 26, 2007).

Wii comparisons: After 104 weeks, Wii is where GBA was at 91.0 weeks (December 15, 2002), where DS was at 71.4 weeks (April 12, 2006), where PS2 was at 101.0 weeks (February 3, 2002), and where PSP was at 156.6 weeks (December 6, 2007).

DSi comparisons: After 4 weeks, DSi is where GBASP was at 5.8 weeks (March 22, 2003), where GBM was at 23.6 weeks (February 23, 2006), and where DSL was at 4.4 weeks (March 29, 2006).

Based on the latest Media Create hardware numbers...
DS vs PSP: Weekly shares of 67.4 / 32.6 bring total shares to 69.0 / 31.0. If DS stopped selling and PSP continued at this week's rate, it would catch up in 242.7 weeks (July 27, 2013).

X360 vs PS3: Weekly shares of 24.6 / 75.4 bring total shares to 24.0 / 76.0. If PS3 stopped selling and X360 continued at this week's rate, it would catch up in 148.1 weeks (October 3, 2011).

PS3 vs Wii: Weekly shares of 41.2 / 58.8 bring total shares to 25.9 / 74.1. If Wii stopped selling and PS3 continued at this week's rate, it would catch up in 131.3 weeks (June 7, 2011).

Week over week, there's really no constant pattern to the changes. PS3 doubling is the biggest obvious difference this week.

Lots more Charts & Comparisons @ Chart Get!

[DAaaMan64]

Why is the PS3 outselling the 360?

[Kairon]

I just don't think that there's some huge media bias against Nintendo

Neither do I.  The "press" generally loves Nintendo.  It's the games press that's a little iffy about them.  If you don't believe me, go back and read stuff most of them (and us) wrote about the Wii.  And do the same about the DS.  They were both reviled as "gimmicks" and such.  Now just think about that for a second.  If you were some new gamer, or even a middle-information vet, or a pretty hardcore Nintendo fan, and say, 1up just called the DS "the next Virtual Boy" or the Wii "Phamily Phun Waggle Phests," would you really trust any judgment they pass on DS or Wii games?  They've mellowed a bit since then, mainly due to the "don't piss off the majority too much if you don't want your magazine to die" rule, but it's still there, under the surface.

Reviews are very useful when all consoles are similar, like the SNES and Genesis, and the PS2, Xbox, and GC.  But since the DS and Wii are so "at odds" with the rest of the industry they are dominating, reviews based on old checklists just don't have as much weight.    And I'm not saying that reviewers can't ever gain that trust back, because they had it in 2004 and 2006.  They'll just have to work harder to understand what readers expect in a review to make up for the readers they lost when they painted all of them with broad strokes and patronizingly condescended to.

And when there are confirmed stories about review-buying through games like Kane and Lynch, is it possible that this happens with games that maybe deserve high scores?  Can we ever really be sure a game got what it deserved?  Say what you want about sales numbers, at least they are objective.  Now of course I'm not saying sales numbers are the only metric and we should all just scan the charts for quality, but when the game buying populace vehemently disagrees with reviewers, something is amiss and it's not just the "casual gamer" business again.

Reviews in more equivalent times would be a good thing to use.  But when the console that is dominating is so "ideologically different" than the console that is losing, it's just hard to believe reviewers are objective, especially when they've previously shown animosity towards one.

Excellent points Dequello. I...have absolutely nothing to add... umm... *salutes awkwardly* yeah!

[Kairon]

Why is the PS3 outselling the 360?

Japan.

[MaleficentOgre]

as I've changed the way I play games I've stopped giving much if any credence to reviews. It's not the reviewers fault, I'm just not in the audience anymore. Most reviews are generally good for two to six months. And as long as any game below say 8.5 or so is crap then the whole process is a joke. All media is biased because they experiance things in a certain way, and no matter how hard they try it isn't the same as a lot of people. The most common game complaint about another game doing the same thing before is absurd to anyone who hasn't played that game.
If RE5 is just like RE4 then all you're going to hear is how it's RE4 in Africa. But to anyone who didn't play RE4 and maybe only has a 360 or a non bc ps3 then playing RE4 isn't an option and their enjoyment won't be effected in any way at all by how similar it is or isn't to the prior game.
So yeah, reviews are pretty useless as they're currently written. Needs more island criticism.
Also, mediocre and bad are really subjective. Excellent game design is totally subjective. If you got Gears 2 for online play and it takes you five minutes to get to a match this game everyone loves is mostly garbage for you.

[NWR_Lindy]

Games will never be reviewed in a vacuum, though.  If a multiplatform title comes out on PS3/360 and it's more immersive than the Wii version due to a better graphics engine, how could you not give the Wii version a lower score?  The Wii version's game experience simply isn't as good overall.  However, if the Wii version has its own strengths - like, say, Pro Evo Soccer 2008, which is a great game in its own right - it should (and is) scored accordingly.  If someone can point me to a game that they think got screwed over by some sort of bias, please do.  I don't think those games exist.

If the Wii version of a game is simply trying to ape the PS3/360 version of a game, it will always be an inferior version almost by default, and will get lower scores (as it should).  That's not a game media bias, that's a bad port by a developer.  That's not the media's fault.  They're just calling it like they see it.  And I firmly believe that idiocy like Gerstmanngate is the exception, not the rule.  I also value Metacritic, since publisher PR machines can't get to EVERY media outlet out there.

The Wii should have games that are considered to be high-quality when compared to ALL of gaming, not just games that "are great under the conditions that the reviewer has lived alone on an island since 2000 and has never played any other console later than the Nintendo 64".  You also have to realize that the game media knows better.  To a certain degree, Nintendo is preying on the ignorance of its new audience.  Don't add anything new to Animal Crossing Wii?  Who cares, none of our new customers know any better!

[daniel0x7d]

I don't know if you can call it a conspiracy but there's been a definite line of hate directed at Nintendo since Sony came on the scene from everyone involved in video games: Developers, publishers, magazines, reviewers. Hell, all you have to do is look at last generation and you can see it clear as day. XBox barely outsells GameCube while MS loses BILLIONS of dollars and yet it's looked at as being a massive success while Nintendo is considered dead in the water. I don't care that public opinion of the GC was that it was an inferior system even when compared to the PS2 since developers knew different but what does infuriate me is that whenever a game was multiplatform and scheduled to appear on all 3 consoles developers would port the PS2 version to the GC, and make it look WORSE! Why? It would have been easier to port the XBox version down than to port the PS2 version up as the GC was almost neck-in-neck with the XBox and light years ahead of the PS2.

And now you have developers refusing to make Wii games because they say that they'd basically have to make 2 games? One for the PS3/360 and one for Wii? Why would that be a problem? They did that last generation anyway whenever a game was released on the PS2 and the XBox. If anyone doesn't actually believe that they had to put in a ton of effort to get a game to run on those two very different systems they're fooling themselves. Besides, the cost of making a Wii version, even if they had to start from scratch which we all know they wouldn't have to, would be so negligible that there shouldn't even be an issue with making it. But again, no port for the GC even though it would have been super easy and cheap to do and no port for Wii even though it alone controls almost 50% of the home console industry.

I'm sorry but conspiracy those may not be but they certainly do sound like someone (EVERYONE) is holding a grudge.

As for reviews, it's been stylish to bash Nintendo for not sucking up to gamers like Sony and MS do and that's certainly never going to change. Not until game reviewers get some integrity at least.

[Kairon]

As a fan, I'm resigned to any anti-Nintendo sentiment. That's the price of taking the path less travelled.

[KDR_11k]

And as long as any game below say 8.5 or so is crap then the whole process is a joke.

You're reading the score wrong. Below 8.5 isn't crap, it's still good, it just means there are better games around and you probably should spend your money on those first. Games are expensive and there's tons of great games around so "just good" doesn't cut it in this market anymore.

Also "Gerstmanngate" was just incompetence from the reviewer. Supposedly he hacked that up in one hour before the deadline, not bothering to really play the game much and he had been pulling a lot of crap before then too. Money hats or not, Gerstmann deserved to get fired and he just spread the rumor that it was because he was honest rather than because he was an incompetent lazy slob.

BTW, Animal Crossing wasn't "preying on the ignorance of the new market", they clearly said it's a core game, i.e. they expect the old market to buy it.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

At some point the "new" market will be recognized as "the" market (pretty soon, cuz it is).  Can't wait to see how this further affects the gaming press business (adjust to the market?  or go batshit insane?).