Media Create Sales: Week 9, 2013 (Feb 25 - Mar 03)

AranhaHunter

Banned
Mar 20, 2006
10,669
0
0
Just a quick preview before Chris posts the whole thing:

Soul Sacrifice - 70%

He thinks it could perform similarly to MHP.

118,317 / 668,964 (PSP: 2,220,528)
Not knowing shipment numbers make 70% worthless.

Who is "he" that thinks it could perform similar to MHP? Sounds like a bit of a wishful thinking at this point IMO.
 

Celestial

Banned
Dec 4, 2012
200
0
0
so why didn't Enix release Dragon Quest VIII or Dragon Quest V remake on PS1? And why didn't Squaresoft release Final Fantasy VII on SNES? Etc. etc.
What are you saying makes 0 sense and connection with that we are talking about.Dragon Quest VII debuted in PS1 5 months after PS2 was released.You understand what that means right?

Square decided to go with PS for VII because of the CD.
 
Jan 28, 2010
6,073
0
0
ITALY
graphmag.wordpress.com
lol that is one of the dumbest comparisons you could have picked
All problems with Nintendo aside, Squaresoft had a lot of SNES games in the pipeline in mid-Ninenties, and Final Fantasy IP was really growing on that platform entry after entry. But of course they needed to start thinking to shift development processes to the new generations of consoles. Same reasoning for Capcom; sticking on PSP in 2011 / 2012 would have meant delaying the arrival of MH on new handheld devices.

What are you saying makes 0 sense and connection with that we are talking about.Dragon Quest VII debuted in PS1 5 months after PS2 was released.You understand what that means right?

Square decided to go with PS for VII because of the CD.
That was my point...?
Software houses need to make decisions quickly when it comes to shift development to new generations of console. There are many reasons why Squaresoft brought VII on PS1 and didn't stick to SNES for another entry, despite the series was growing in sales and reputation. Same for Enix; bringing DQ on PS2 helped to build the userbase in preparation of the eight chapter. Capcom moved MH to 3DS because they had to move the IP to the new generation anyway. Why sticking to PSP in 2011 / 2012, delaying a potential new entry to late 2012 / 2013 without having time to build the userbase on a new platform?
 

test_account

XP-39C²
Mar 22, 2007
23,613
2
1,000
Theres a relationship but not an exclusivity contract.
Capcom would be better off releasing their own hardware than supporting Sony hardware now another 3D platform is available; one that is obviously more backed by the producer.

Seriously. Sony makes no incentive to come to their platform; there is no pressure there.
Vita is evidence enough that there is no some mass wild fanboy group out there.

People will go 3DS over the next few years.
Capcom put 3G exclusive for 3DS to support MH4 3DS. Thats it.

3G sold above expectations iirc, and that was a while ago too.
Do we have any proof of what intencives that are being given both on 3DS and Vita?
 

saichi

Member
Apr 8, 2010
2,736
0
0
Nope,nope and nope.

We all know Nintendo moneyhatted Capcom.Capcom had Monster Hunter Portable 3rdHD for Vita launch or after launch and Nintendo came in with money and a contact that was saying that Monster Hunter will not be available to other platforms for 2 years.The guy who leaked this allong with other rumours was 100% confirmed.He also spilled the beans for Monster Hunter 3 3DS long before the official announcement and while 3DS wasnt selling so good in Japan.

Also GE is big but not Monster Hunter size.If God Eater 2 was PSVITA exclusive it would be sure the best selling game on the platform for a long time.
The rumor for the exclusive is for 3 years. Someone will probably take your post and spread it as 2 years now.
 

Somnid

Member
Aug 9, 2006
19,682
0
0
I'll probably cop flak for saying this, but I imagine there's intrinsically a more receptive audience to Monster Hunter on the PSV than to COD on the Wii U. That's just conjecture though on my part.

That being said, I agree there are opportunity costs to consider and it may make more sense to devote development resources to MH4 3DS and/or see if Sony would cover costs.
I don't think it's really a matter of receptiveness but more that you buy the game for the multiplayer and to play with friends. So naturally if your friends have the 3DS version then what's the point in you getting a Vita version even if it might manage to be better overall? Even if you take into account online you want the version with the biggest playerbase.
 

pieatorium

Member
Mar 22, 2009
10,810
0
0
All problems with Nintendo aside, Squaresoft had a lot of SNES games in the pipeline in mid-Ninenties, and Final Fantasy IP was really growing on that platform entry after entry. But of course they needed to start thinking to shift development processes to the new generations of consoles. Same reasoning for Capcom; sticking on PSP in 2011 / 2012 would have meant delaying the arrival of MH on new handheld devices.
That has absolutley nothing to do with a 3d game that had huge amounts of fmv didn't get a port to a system that could only handle 2d graphics and had carts that couldn't store all the fmv.

It is an insanely dumb comparison.
 

Maedhros

Member
Apr 16, 2010
6,678
0
0
Theres a relationship but not an exclusivity contract.
Capcom would be better off releasing their own hardware than supporting Sony hardware now another 3D platform is available; one that is obviously more backed by the producer.

Seriously. Sony makes no incentive to come to their platform; there is no pressure there.
Vita is evidence enough that there is no some mass wild fanboy group out there.

People will go 3DS over the next few years.
Capcom put 3G exclusive for 3DS to support MH4 3DS. Thats it.

3G sold above expectations iirc, and that was a while ago too.
I really doubt Sony didn't make any incentive to Capcom. That would be incredible stupid, even for SCEJ.
Nintendo was faster and had better timing, I'm sure.
 

Alrus

Member
Apr 4, 2010
9,787
0
595
Belgium
That's because there's probably a exclusivity contract... otherwise, it makes 0 sense. It's just extra cash.
It's pretty simple really, they wanted the fanbase to start moving to the 3DS before MH4 came out. That's why the two were announced closely together (in order to show their fans where the series was headed).

They couldn't have kept releasing PSP games forever.
 
Jan 28, 2010
6,073
0
0
ITALY
graphmag.wordpress.com
That has absolutley nothing to do with a 3d game that had huge amounts of fmv didn't get a port to a system that could only handle 2d graphics and had carts that couldn't store all the fmv.

It is an insanely dumb comparison.
Did you really understand my example? I don't think so.
The point was: software houses need to shift development processes to new generation of consoles, right? In particular when it comes to their big IPs. Final Fantasy VII was eventually released on PS1 but guess what, it started as a SNES project! But Squaresoft wasn't myopic enough to stick again to SNES, and they brought VII to PS1. The reasons why this happened are many (a lot of problems with Nintendo, etc.), but the underlying reason is one for all: move the IP to a new generation of hardware.
 

shinra-bansho

Member
Nov 13, 2011
16,595
0
0
Why not, same game, lower price.
People seemed to ignore BEST versions when doing comparisons earlier. E.g. when looking at GT games. So I wasn't sure which number people tended to use; original only or original+BEST.
Just a quick preview before Chris posts the whole thing:

Soul Sacrifice - 70%

He thinks it could perform similarly to MHP.

118,317 / 668,964 (PSP: 2,220,528)
Oh, I missed this earlier - where is it from?
 

test_account

XP-39C²
Mar 22, 2007
23,613
2
1,000
Not knowing shipment numbers make 70% worthless.

Who is "he" that thinks it could perform similar to MHP? Sounds like a bit of a wishful thinking at this point IMO.
I wouldnt say that it is worthless. It is a small piece of information that tells something about how much the first shipment sold. It tells nothing of how much it actually sold indeed, which i guess what you're referring too, but at least it is sales related :)

The MHP comparison might be about 1st week sales, but i dont know.
 
Jan 28, 2010
6,073
0
0
ITALY
graphmag.wordpress.com
I wouldnt say that it is worthless. It is a small piece of information that tells something about how much the first shipment sold. It tells nothing of how much it actually sold indeed, which i guess what you're referring too, but at least it is sales related :)

The MHP comparison might be about 1st week sales, but i dont know.
I think 100k units are doable, it's been heavily promoted by Sony.
 

pieatorium

Member
Mar 22, 2009
10,810
0
0
Did you really understand my example?
Absolutely I did. It is still a stupid example as this was a game that 100% could not have been made on that other hardware . If that original NES version of VII was the one that was made and came out exclusive to PS1 your example would be spot on.
 
Jun 7, 2007
5,707
4
945
People seemed to ignore BEST versions when doing comparisons earlier. E.g. when looking at GT games. So I wasn't sure which number people tended to use; original only or original+BEST.
I use Original + Best.

The only difference is the lower price (and the different cover), it's the same game. ^^


Monster Hunter Portable 2nd (PSP) wouldn't have 1.703.361 units not accounting these. :p
 

grimshawish

Banned
Dec 30, 2011
9,164
0
0
Do we have any proof of what intencives that are being given both on 3DS and Vita?
No. Its just assumptions based on what we have seen.

I really doubt Sony didn't make any incentive to Capcom. That would be incredible stupid, even for SCEJ.
Nintendo was faster and had better timing, I'm sure.
The thing with MH is that its so big that you can't 'buy it'; I've no doubt theres some sales incentives but both sides would have offered this.

I feel its an internal decision by Capcom to ensure the future health of the series. There an untapped market on Nintendo hardware and staying on ageing hardware is not a good idea for any brand.

I feel any Nintendo incentive was more out of making Capcom as comfortable as possible, as oppose to turning their head. The Nintendo userbase and a machine now up to scratch with what MH needs but also offering that 'next gen' side of things.

Capcom don't want three competing systems on the handheld market. They quite frankly want one. The 3DS.


I think Nintendo honestly made the most attractive system for Monster Hunter and Capcom felt Nintendo would make it a success. I struggle to see many other companies making another decision; in fact a lot of the big publishers are making the same.
 
Jan 28, 2010
6,073
0
0
ITALY
graphmag.wordpress.com
Absolutely I did. It is still a stupid example as this was a game that 100% could not have been made on that other hardware . If that original NES version of VII was the one that was made and came out exclusive to PS1 your example would be spot on.
The game was planned to be released on SNES. Square could have sticked to SNES a bit more, given how growing was the IP. They didn't. They weren't myopic enough to stick on a platform that would have been dying in 1997. They had to shift resources to develop on new hardware.

Same with Capcom. They started with an updated version of an existing game because it's more common now to see this kind of operations. Sticking to PSP in 2012 would have jurted the IP.
 

saichi

Member
Apr 8, 2010
2,736
0
0
People seemed to ignore BEST versions when doing comparisons earlier. E.g. when looking at GT games. So I wasn't sure which number people tended to use; original only or original+BEST.
I always thought BEST is counted as long as it's the same game without adding any content and just cheaper. That's how MHP2G is a 4 million seller.

EDIT: beaten and the same example was even used. haha
 

BadWolf

Member
Apr 15, 2010
26,126
3
0
Looks like Vita might finally have struck gold, and with an original IP at that.

Not knowing shipment numbers make 70% worthless.

Who is "he" that thinks it could perform similar to MHP? Sounds like a bit of a wishful thinking at this point IMO.
70% sell through for a brand new IP day one is worthless? Okay.

And considering how much Sony has been pushing the game I doubt the shipment was small.
 

Maedhros

Member
Apr 16, 2010
6,678
0
0
70% sell through for a brand new IP day one is worthless? Okay.

And considering how much Sony has been pushing the game I doubt the shipment was small.
I wouldn't take this guy seriously... he's incredible negative and mostly eats crow around these topics.
 

saichi

Member
Apr 8, 2010
2,736
0
0
And considering how much Sony has been pushing the game I doubt the shipment was small.
It also depends on the retailers though. If they are also optimistic about the prospect of the game, the shipment would be larger.
 

michaelius

Member
Jan 5, 2012
15,207
932
610
Well technically he is right - that sell through alone is not telling us much more than

consumer demand > shop owners estimation
 

lunchwithyuzo

Banned
Jun 20, 2010
11,040
0
0
I'm not gonna repeat myself, read my previous posts.
Your previous posts don't say anything but accuse me of port begging or skirting some fantasy line. Put up or shut up.


So you don't know and you're assuming no money was exchanged. Great, thanks for clarifying that you really don't know.
Welcome to 99% of the discourse on GAF. If you really can't take informed observation, I'd suggest finding a new forum.
 

Alrus

Member
Apr 4, 2010
9,787
0
595
Belgium
70% sell through for a brand new IP day one is worthless? Okay.

And considering how much Sony has been pushing the game I doubt the shipment was small.
Retailers aren't going to order a huge amount of copies for a new IP usually. Even if it's heavily promoted. Risk is too big for them.

And 70% ST is good but if you don't know the initial shipment it is indeed kinda worthless.
 

AranhaHunter

Banned
Mar 20, 2006
10,669
0
0
70% sell through for a brand new IP day one is worthless? Okay.

And considering how much Sony has been pushing the game I doubt the shipment was small.
70% of what though? Did Sony ship 50K units? Or was it 300K? We simply don't know.

Welcome to 99% of the discourse on GAF. If you really can't take informed observation, I'd suggest finding a new forum.
That's my point. We don't know, so don't act like you do know with such certainty. Educated guesses are fine, but they are just that, guesses.
 

shinra-bansho

Member
Nov 13, 2011
16,595
0
0
What are plausible shipment numbers though?

50K? 80K? 100K? 150K? More?

Is the shipment expected to be larger than Senran Kagura?
 

Alrus

Member
Apr 4, 2010
9,787
0
595
Belgium
*cough* Ninokuni *cough*
Huh didn't think of that one :/ Well the situation is quite different, Ni No Kuni had the Level 5 brand pretty much at its peak, and Ghibli. Plus it was on the most successful handheld of all time. Soul Sacrifice is by SCEJ (they haven't really launched a huge game in ages), doesn't have any mainstream brand attached to it and it's on the Vita... I guess retailers expectations were quite different.
 

test_account

XP-39C²
Mar 22, 2007
23,613
2
1,000
I think 100k units are doable, it's been heavily promoted by Sony.
Yeah, double pack and hardware bundle should help too. It not doing 90k-100k in the first week will be dissapointing in my opinion (i include digital sales in this 90k-100k number, eventhough we might not get to know those numbers specifically).


No. Its just assumptions based on what we have seen.
I understand. I think we know too little about what is going on behind the scenes to say much about that one company is offering much intensives and another one isnt.
 

Road

Member
Jan 21, 2008
7,602
0
0
Brazil
sites.google.com
Huh didn't think of that one :/ Well the situation is quite different, Ni No Kuni had the Level 5 brand pretty much at its peak, and Ghibli. Plus it was on the most successful handheld of all time. Soul Sacrifice is by SCEJ (they haven't really launched a huge game in ages), doesn't have any mainstream brand attached to it and it's on the Vita... I guess retailers expectations were quite different.
NNK was an exception. It doesn't invalidate your statement, since you said "usually". And I agree, it's completely different from SS.



I was looking at the Famitsu top 30 and this past week was Vita's 4th biggest in software sales. Let's see if SS+ToH can be the best.

Code:
12/12/2011	215235 (launch)
11/06/2012	160290 (P4G)
27/08/2012	158009 (HMPDF)
25/02/2013	157934 (SKSV+PSO2)
24/09/2012	 77786 (Ys+EDF3)
 

axisofweevils

Holy crap! Today's real megaton is that more than two people can have the same first name.
Sep 12, 2011
7,370
0
0
UK
I really doubt Sony didn't make any incentive to Capcom. That would be incredible stupid, even for SCEJ.
Nintendo was faster and had better timing, I'm sure.
My theory has always been that the Circle Pad Pro (designed with the help of Capcom) was the price Nintendo paid for MH3-4.
 

Frillen

Member
Apr 28, 2007
6,659
0
0
70% sell through for a brand new IP day one is worthless? Okay.

And considering how much Sony has been pushing the game I doubt the shipment was small.
Actually it IS worthless since we have nothing to base it of.
 

wsippel

Banned
May 25, 2006
14,534
0
0
Erfurt, Germany
We'll see after these 3 years if this rumour will end being true or not.
Or not. Just because some contract that might or might not exist in the first place expires doesn't mean they'll actually do something.

The whole "exclusivity deal" rumor is bullshit in my opinion. Capcom didn't bring MH to 3DS because Nintendo paid them, they did it because it was the most suitable platform from a business point of view.
 

lunchwithyuzo

Banned
Jun 20, 2010
11,040
0
0
That's my point. We don't know, so don't act like you do know with such certainty. Educated guesses are fine, but they are just that, guesses.
I'm going off past precedent and company history, there's a grand total of zero examples for Nintendo handing out cash for a project they don't publish themselves. Where did I ever state I wasn't simply going off the obvious?

Seriously "you don't really know for sure unless you know" is like the dumbest, most circular, needlessly discourse stifling argument I've seen on GAF in awhile. The only good thing I can say about it is that it's an improvement over the mysterious "port begging line".
 

Cuddler

Member
Jun 27, 2012
1,604
0
0
I'm going off past precedent and company history, there's a grand total of zero examples for Nintendo handing out cash for a project they don't publish themselves. Where did I ever state I wasn't simply going off the obvious?
Weren't the Capcom Gamecube "exclusive" games published by Capcom?
 

shinra-bansho

Member
Nov 13, 2011
16,595
0
0
Being the most suitable platform and getting some sort of monetary investment/guarantee aren't really mutually exclusive.
 

DaBoss

Member
Dec 5, 2012
20,948
0
0
Toronto
Nintendo will have given Capcom revenue guarantees, that is how it works as I understand it. If MH3G/MH4 fail to sell as much as Nintendo have told Capcom it will sell then they have to make up the difference.

Capcom should have put MH4 on PS3 and MHP4 on PSP for most profit, and it will show soon that they made a mistake by selling the franchise out to Nintendo since the MH base is very poor on 3DS compared to PSP.
MH3G already sold above what Capcom expected.

The second part is totally false, MH4 would not have made the most profit if it was made on the PS3. It would have made the most on the PSP, then the 3DS.
 

AranhaHunter

Banned
Mar 20, 2006
10,669
0
0
I'm going off past precedent and company history, there's a grand total of zero examples for Nintendo handing out cash for a project they don't publish themselves. Where did I ever state I wasn't simply going off the obvious?

Seriously "you don't really know for sure unless you know" is like the dumbest, most circular, needlessly discourse stifling argument I've seen on GAF in awhile. The only good thing I can say about it is that it's an improvement over the mysterious "port begging line".
I said you were walking a fine line there and I still say that you were. You are free to disagree and that's fine, I don't really care.

Saying something is 100% a sure thing when you don't know or have no proof of it being true is pretty idiotic. There's only a few times where we have 100% proof that money was exchanged (IIRC MS on Tales), but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. We can assume, but that doesn't make it a fact. You're trying to pass off your assumptions as fact and that's a stupid thing to do.

I forgot how stubborn and arrogant you are so I'll just say that you are 100% right and I'm 100% wrong. Satisfied?
 

Cuddler

Member
Jun 27, 2012
1,604
0
0
Yes, and Capcom famously stated no money changed hands for them. Nintendo certainly does incentives, they don't do cash payouts.
Didn't know that, so why Capcom decided to do 5 exclusive Gamecube games? Any particolar reason? And what to do you mean by incentives? I would love to know if you have some link, I think it's interesting. Anyway I'm not really sure why moneyhats are seen as a bad thing in here, I think it's just another way to have more support.