Shit I got mixed up. 360 version was not simultaneous release. Still, FFXIII-2 had much better leg than FFXIII. They sold around the same number after first week. I remember ToX sold more than FFXIII-2 in the first week, which was like the end of an era for me, but FFXIII-2 caught up later.
-
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.
Shit I got mixed up. 360 version was not simultaneous release. Still, FFXIII-2 had much better leg than FFXIII. They sold around the same number after first week. I remember ToX sold more than FFXIII-2 in the first week, which was like the end of an era for me, but FFXIII-2 caught up later.
Why was Rise of the Tomb Raider exclusive?
oh, wasn't aware it was it like that since it's only one region of exclusivity.
I'm gonna assume Sony didn't pay for KH3 being PS4 exclusive in japan though
UberTag
Member
Never doubt the enduring fandom of Underwater Ray Romano.
Magicpaint
Member
Oh wow. MHS set for bomba of epic proportions. Even the Diary games did much better (potentially). Clearly it's not appealing to the vast majority of MH base. It's a shame though, as I think it looks amazing. Ah well.
They also talked up how Tomb Raider and Just Cause did when the former totally tanked compared to the last one and the latter was nothing to write home about.
Hellraider
Member
We shouldn't write it out as bomba just like we shouldn't expect it to be fine just because it has the anime coming. The fact though is that the anime is running in a brand new timeslot for anime and this one is right before Dragonball and One Piece. There must definitely be some hefty expectations for it, just like there were with the Ace Atorrney anime which at least ratings wise was a success.
We need to wait so see if the anime succeeds and if that success can translate to the game being Yokai Watch'd or being... crushed (ho ho ho).
MHS is pretty much a new IP and has to prove itself. I mean main Pokemon games right now sell 4-5m while the spin-offs this gen where lucky to sell more than 300k this gen.
Its too soon to judge MHS, if its a quality product (which it looks like) and the Anime catches on it will have some legs.
Its too soon to judge MHS, if its a quality product (which it looks like) and the Anime catches on it will have some legs.
Sammy Samusu
Member
THIS IS WHAT I DONT UNDERSTAND
I bought the Felyne 3DS game and it's a lot of fun, but MHS looks bigger and better.
No, if they want to attract new players, there's no avoiding it.
Bu I have my import copy pre-ordered just in case, lol.
I don't see why it is so hard to understand. The Diary games only did really well originally on the PSP at the peak of Monster Hunter popularity. The first Diary game sold over 500k. The G version the next year sold about half of that. The PSP puzzle game didn't sell much at all. The 3DS Diary game in 2015 sold less than 100k, and opened at... I think 50k or so?
It's not like we're looking at huge demand for spinoffs of MH anymore, at least not at a "must pre-order and buy day one NOW" level. MH is still popular when it's the main game, it even that has declined since the PSP days. It's just not the 4.5 million monster it was in the 2010-2011 period.
If MHS is going to make it big, it will have to make it big by taking the same route any successful new IP kid media title takes - word of mouth and becoming an actual social phenomenon. It doesn't look like it will be getting much shortcut help by being a MH branded game. Maybe if this came out in 2011 it could ride on that, not anymore.
It's not like we're looking at huge demand for spinoffs of MH anymore, at least not at a "must pre-order and buy day one NOW" level. MH is still popular when it's the main game, it even that has declined since the PSP days. It's just not the 4.5 million monster it was in the 2010-2011 period.
If MHS is going to make it big, it will have to make it big by taking the same route any successful new IP kid media title takes - word of mouth and becoming an actual social phenomenon. It doesn't look like it will be getting much shortcut help by being a MH branded game. Maybe if this came out in 2011 it could ride on that, not anymore.
Sammy Samusu
Member
I agree that the original Felyne game came out at the peak of the franchise, but Stories opening barely above Felyne DX is an absurd.
02./00. [3DS] Monster Hunter Diary: Poka Poka Airu Village DX <ETC> (Capcom) {2015.09.10} (¥4.309) - 59.456 / NEW
It's a glorified port of a port versus an original and bigger game developed in house.
I don't agree. What I do agree is that there is a stronger built in audience who might be playing such a title on a new platform years later. It being an upgrade of an old title which sold well is more of an advantage than something that is trying to build a brand new audience which does not include the demographic who has grown up already fond of this franchise.
The main target demographic for MHS seems to be the younger brothers and younger sisters of people who already like MH, and they might have seen their siblings play it, but now here is a cute version for them! It seems like an easy sell on paper, especially given the popularity of Yokai Watch and Pokemon on the same platform - children's turn based RPGs. But I guess the reality is that children aren't such an easy sell either, especially when you consider how Yokai Watch first started off in sales.
The problem really isn't that the platform is wrong or the genre is wrong. It just shows that you cannot just launch something for kids designed to draw them in, and expect it to be immediately successful right off the bat. In fact, I think we have seen almost no examples of it being the case. Level-5 is the biggest publisher courting this demographic, and their road to success really shows how hard it is.
For young kids:
Inazuma Eleven 1 opened at 41k. The series peaked at 1.2 million maybe? Not sure.
Yokai Watch 1 opened at 52k. The series peaked at 3.1 million.
For older teens/general audiences:
Professor Layton 1 opened at 130k. The series peaked at about 1 million.
Little Battlers 1 opened at 170k maybe? The series flatlined at under 400k iirc.
Ninokuni DS opened at 160k or so. It ended up selling 500k+.
This shows that how well a series starts off doing has almost no relation to the eventual success of a franchise like this. We can also look at all the failures Capcom and other companies have attempted in this space. Being Monster Hunter doesn't really make it special it seems.
I think the question I would ask: Would Ride On be given an equal push and a similarly great timeslot if it wasn't Monster Hunter?
My instinct says no which means Stories still has a massive leg-up by being Monster Hunter.
It might not make much difference in the long run but that's an advantage.
My instinct says no which means Stories still has a massive leg-up by being Monster Hunter.
It might not make much difference in the long run but that's an advantage.
Why would you ask that question at all? If a publisher does not push a product like this hard, then they are not expecting success from it. Why does it have to be Monster Hunter or a known IP? Gaist Crusher also got a big marketing push in kids magazines and so on. It had a weekday 6pm timeslot on TV Tokyo, so they could watch it after school. The anime also ran for a gazillion episodes. It failed because no one wanted the product, not because Capcom didn't push it.
I honestly think the only thing worth looking at here is that it is really hard to launch a brand new kids hit multimedia project, regardless of IP. You can take anything that isn't already kid friendly and it doesn't matter. Final Fantasy Kids? Who cares. Metal Gear Solid Kids? Lolz. Young Yakuza? Haha. Dragon Quest succeeds BECAUSE it has always been kid-friendly from the start. So that's actually interesting to look at.
That's a big IF.
Roald Dahl often said writing children book is the most difficult, but who can do it will be the top of the world.
Like Pokemon and Minecraft, plus GTA and Call of Duty
I had try the demo, didn't see any charm in MHS.
Only hope anime would help, it's look high production and cute.
Like Pokemon and Minecraft, plus GTA and Call of Duty
I had try the demo, didn't see any charm in MHS.
Only hope anime would help, it's look high production and cute.
I don't mean from (Capcom's) the publishers perspective though. Capcom using their hottest license for the project means its obviously much more attractive for anyone who their seeking to partner with.
I wonder if Nintendo will want anything to do it in the West and if Capcom will give it a DD-only release thanks to the japanese performance.
Yeah. I see FFXV getting generally good reviews (8-9), but nothing shown so far seems to indicate it being something that gets great word of mouth like Witcher 3 about it being a must-have.
DriftingSpirit
Member
Yeah, I don't think just being good is going to cut it. FFXV needs to be in that best of the best group to really get carried by word of mouth and what not.
Edit - Speaking on the west.
Edit - Speaking on the west.
theprodigy
Member
I'm pretty sure they're talking about in the west.
That being said FFXV would have to knock it out of the park.
DriftingSpirit
Member
Mhm, I was talking about west. That is the only way I see it getting a bit of wind under those sails.
"Best RPG of this gen!!"
"A classic!"
etc...
"Best RPG of this gen!!"
"A classic!"
etc...
vinnygambini
Why are strippers at the U.N. bad when they're great at strip clubs???
Except for Tomb Raider (PS3/360), not really
Batman: Arkham Asylum from Eidos lol
Edit: Are we discounting Eidos in that question?
We're including Eidos, but excluding 360/PS3 era titles as those are more last gen. I feel Eidos was way more competitive last gen than they were this gen, for example, and ran into the THQ "we can no longer keep up with modern standards" issue.
Life Is Strange?
vinnygambini
Why are strippers at the U.N. bad when they're great at strip clubs???
I feel that way as well for Eidos.
I always found it strange as well that it is part of the SE portfolio given the ownership structure Eidos previously had (WB had a significant minority interest in the company)
Bravely Default clearly outdid expectations but:
1) It's a 3DS game
2) It was published by Nintendo
3) It did numbers that would be considered very low for most other releases
That's a console game?
Yeah, I mean home consoles in particular, because those generally have to reach much larger numbers to impress, have very harsh competitive landscapes, and have a pretty different audience playing on them.
Square Enix can pretty trivially make a game that's up there with the best handhelds have to offer between their financial means and skill set. That's a lot harder for them on home console.
Square Enix can pretty trivially make a game that's up there with the best handhelds have to offer between their financial means and skill set. That's a lot harder for them on home console.
I wasn't sure if Nirolak meant not-a-mobile game but that's what I put it being a 3DS game as point one.
I think your point about Eidos is true but I think as a separate entity they ran into that brick wall last generation anyway, that's why Square Enix bought them.
Square2015
Member
You guys think FF15 will sell >1m in Japan?
If so, I'm encouraged to hear that.
If so, I'm encouraged to hear that.
While I agree that they ran into that wall last generation before the acquisition, my core feeling is that this has happened again because they're ran into Square Enix's wall, where the company's technology, financial wherewithal, skill set, and publishing structure can't actually support competing with the biggest Western publishers.
As such, this same wall strikes me as something that's going to negatively impact their flagship Japanese games as well. Final Fantasy XV looks like a competent but not astonishing open world RPG that feels like it's a few years behind, similar to how Deus Ex or Tomb Raider feel a bit out of place in 2016, even if they do get solid reviews (which is something I'm not carving in stone for FFXV tbh).
That doesn't mean it's going to be a complete disaster, but I think it's certainly going to fray at their sales potential and limit their reach well below what the RPG genre titans do. It's also hard for me to see a path forward to *not* having this issue given standards are only going to keep rapidly increasing.
DriftingSpirit
Member
How so?
what would be the last Japan-made RPG titan in a home console in recent history both japan only and worldwide??
FF13?
Edge_Maverick
Member
"we can no longer keep up with modern standards"
I guess this could be quite true to Deus Ex and Just Cause 3, although the latter is also related to the fact that it came out too late, imo. JC 3 seems to be a rushed (and somewhat safe) idea after they scrapped the previous one - a F2P based title. And then they came up with a prettier JC 2 that still suffer from bad performance on consoles + a a cool looking wingsuit.
RRoTR on the other hand seems to be pretty "modern" to me. What does it truly lack? Multiplayer? Eeh, no one cared about it in the first game. An open-world? Well, in a world we consider DA: Inquisition to be one... then RRoTR is definitely that kind of game as well. The thing is: most of impressions I read here on GAF and outside of it points to an improved experience on par to a sequel expectations. I honestly don't see how much else they could do to attract a more casual/mainstream audience and to be considered "modern". Perhaps give more focus to puzzles/tombs since it's a...tomb raiding game? Hmm, I don't think so, since the first one "lacked" those and still got to sell 8.5 million copies plus it's clear most people were satisfied with the product's overall quality.
What probably *killed interest* (just to use a strong expression) in RRoTR was that timed-exclusive BS announcement and the bad reception it kept causing. Then we can keep adding more and more facts to it: the Xbox One being a "failure" (and most of its exclusive titles never being able to lit up the charts in fire - Dead Rising 3/Sunset Overdrive/Quantum Break to name few); the game being released at the same day of FO 4; a lack of *at least* a PC version on day one, etc.
I won't comment on the marketing side since I live in a country where that thing is still quite surreal for games (compared to what I usually see overseas anyway), but if anyone could explain if that could be also be considered in the discussion, then you have my sincere thanks.
I guess this could be quite true to Deus Ex and Just Cause 3, although the latter is also related to the fact that it came out too late, imo. JC 3 seems to be a rushed (and somewhat safe) idea after they scrapped the previous one - a F2P based title. And then they came up with a prettier JC 2 that still suffer from bad performance on consoles + a a cool looking wingsuit.
RRoTR on the other hand seems to be pretty "modern" to me. What does it truly lack? Multiplayer? Eeh, no one cared about it in the first game. An open-world? Well, in a world we consider DA: Inquisition to be one... then RRoTR is definitely that kind of game as well. The thing is: most of impressions I read here on GAF and outside of it points to an improved experience on par to a sequel expectations. I honestly don't see how much else they could do to attract a more casual/mainstream audience and to be considered "modern". Perhaps give more focus to puzzles/tombs since it's a...tomb raiding game? Hmm, I don't think so, since the first one "lacked" those and still got to sell 8.5 million copies plus it's clear most people were satisfied with the product's overall quality.
What probably *killed interest* (just to use a strong expression) in RRoTR was that timed-exclusive BS announcement and the bad reception it kept causing. Then we can keep adding more and more facts to it: the Xbox One being a "failure" (and most of its exclusive titles never being able to lit up the charts in fire - Dead Rising 3/Sunset Overdrive/Quantum Break to name few); the game being released at the same day of FO 4; a lack of *at least* a PC version on day one, etc.
I won't comment on the marketing side since I live in a country where that thing is still quite surreal for games (compared to what I usually see overseas anyway), but if anyone could explain if that could be also be considered in the discussion, then you have my sincere thanks.
Eidos have some management problem for sure. HITMAN's release is one (not saying the current structure is bad, but they sure changed their plans a couple of times). RoTR's release date and timed exclusive all sound stupid. Just Cause 3 was clearly rushed and the game is near unplayable on console. I heard Deus Ex has some problem too.
None of them are bad games, but they could have been much better. I don't know if those decisions came directly from Japan or from London.
None of them are bad games, but they could have been much better. I don't know if those decisions came directly from Japan or from London.
I'll posit an update: has Square Enix had a notably successful console game this generation?
The DQ spin-offs have done decent to well but I don't think they are "notably successful" in the way I am assuming you are using the wording to mean "very successful", they were safe and successes on brand (and have had Vita to support their numbers rather substantially). Persona 5 has been more successful domestically than just about anything SE seems to have released on console or handheld. And I'm not even looking at "extremely successful" titles like Splatoon popping in out of nowhere domestically or internationally either.
Meanwhile, we've had tirefires like SO5, small entries like I Am Setsuna (and Life is Strange), and entries the world forgot existed like WoFF. At the same time, we're openly discussing the possibility of troubles with FFXV, KOH has seemingly slipped into the ether, and the only glimmer of hope hangs in the far distance as DQXI... and that's going to be carried hard and far by its handheld iterations. The west doesn't seem to be at all responding to Builders of WoFF either, and we know how DQH did in the west.
Obviously, Japan's more or less collapsed but SE's fortunes don't seem to have been great anywhere this gen.
Their core game design feels like a straightforward iteration on mid-to-late last gen ideals when we've already passed the cross-gen era and are halfway through this generation.
There are some genres that can get away with this easier because they're very much in vogue, but I don't feel it applied to what either of these products did.
Tomb Raider is a somewhat open-ish singleplayer cinematic third person shooter, which is a product you see almost no one making anymore. They also didn't deliver the level of spectacle and production required to try and make the product really stand out despite no longer being in a popular genre, and there wasn't a highly compelling multiplayer mode that fed into current trends to pad over that issue. Frankly, sometimes genres just stop working over time at the same price level because consumer tastes change or they just keep on expecting more and feel that the genre in question no longer delivers it. They can also just reach the point where they feel they've had their fill and need a really inventive reimagining to care again.
Deus Ex just looks exactly like the 2011 game with improved graphics and some tune ups whenever you look at one of the demos. We can try comparing this to the RPGs that are really selling these days. If you stack it up next to The Witcher 3, it looks ancient in ways that are not just the graphics. If you put it next to Fallout 4, you're missing out on all the little things Bethesda did to sell people on that ranging from settlement building to extensive crafting and customization systems to lots of focus on refined and improved moment to moment combat to the expectation of world scope they've built up with their audience over their past six games. If you put it next to any of the multiplayer games like Destiny or The Division, it's a singleplayer title. If you say "Actually, Deus Ex is a stealth game.", the product looks way less impressive in gameplay and scope than Metal Gear Solid V. I don't think anyone expected the game to play nearly as well as Dark Souls 3 or offer the level of imaginative world design that the Souls series offers, so that comparison doesn't work out either. It becomes a product that's very hard to build excitement for. While it still sold pretty well, EA similarly struggled with this with Dragon Age Inquisition, where it was very difficult to build excitement while offering a product that looked like something people had already experienced. However, it was also one of the first major RPGs out this generation, which helped a lot. You will notice the way they sell Mass Effect is more about showing you driving across gigantic planets, having very snazzy visual effects, and trying to impress people with high concept fantasy fulfillment around exploring a brand new galaxy. Horizon is similarly something that's trying to sell an exciting idea, a large open world, high end visuals, and what looks like sharp action gameplay.
I feel Final Fantasy XV's problem comes in the same form, where it essentially looks like a mixed bag in demos. Just giving an example palette of reactions, we could easily have someone sitting there going "Wow that monster looks awesome. These characters look kind of dorky. This combat seems wonky. Wow this spell effect is awesome. These quests look really boring. This town is great. This dialog is cringeworthy." and then proceed to look at their $60-$240 for this Fall and end up picking up a bunch of other twenty different games releasing this Fall instead, or maybe just spending it on some DLC or microtransactions for the games they already like. I really feel that's what happened to Tomb Raider and Deus Ex, and why they did so much worse than their predecessors. People just felt they had more exciting options available for one reason or another - or a large combination of them - and decided they'd just buy those games cheap if they still felt like it later.
It's certainly possible I could be wrong. Maybe everyone who looks at the game has been completely blown away and is pre-ordering through the roof right now, but based on what I've seen over the years and the trends I've observed, this strikes me as a game in the "This is an uphill battle." pile.
Edit:
Since I didn't write as much about Tomb Raider, let me use Rainbow Six as an example. That was going to be a mission based, singleplayer heavy, kind of open but also with setpieces shooter and was instead rebooted as a multiplayer only game, and is one of Ubisoft's shining jewels this generation that they brag about at every possible opportunity. Ubisoft saw the writing on the wall for that one and acted appropriately. Splinter Cell Blacklist was a really wonderful game, but not one cared, because that type of game was on its way out as a $60 product that appealed to enough people to appease modern AAA budgets. Instead of trying to brush the game up and release another one, Ubisoft sent it back to the drawing board, the same way that the linear co-op third person shooter Ghost Recon Future Soldier - which actually did pretty well for what it was - was followed up by a massive open world Ubisoft game that still had the co-op angle. The game also has much better production values, extensive character customization, what looks to be way more mission variety and gameplay approach options, and they've teased that there will be a large scale dedicated and supported competitive multiplayer suite they'll be unveiling later. I'm sure it cost at least three to four times as much as the last game, but that's what the market wants.
I know this will sound really harsh, but for Tomb Raider, I think they needed to reinvent the entire series again, because it took too long for them to get the first reboot out and they already lost the opportunity to make an iteratively improved sequel instead of a striking reinvention toward modern trends.
Edge_Maverick
Member
So, after reading your opinion, perhaps the problem with RRoTR (and other mentioned titles) it's not the fact the they don't look/feel "modern", it's just the market that wants differents things.
It's unfortunate, really. And it's not like a glorious chekclist of sorts will work everytime and with every franchise. Even Ubisoft had to learn it the hard way with AC/Watch Dogs (even though I'm still not sold on the sequel's ideas).
Watch Dogs actually sold incredibly well (upwards of 9 million units shipped). That said, it's clear the sequel is taking a variety of departures from the previous title. You can interact with about ten times as many things. You have a lot more tools at your disposal ranging from new gadgets and weapons to deployable robots. The world is twice as big. You can play the entire game without killing anyone and finish way more missions with only hacking if you don't feel like going around and doing third person shooting. The game has totally changed its tone because people didn't like the last one. There's a lot more player customization. The multiplayer is way more heavily integrated into the game, and more modes to work with as well. They've teased an extensive end-game that will presumably be part of their next marketing blitz. You can see how this product really doubled down on trying to offer the moon in response to the success of the first game, while addressing as many of the criticisms as possible.
Assassin's Creed is also a series that failed to change enough going across generations, and people started to lose interest as newer, shinier series came out. Now Ubisoft is off trying to completely reinvent the series in response, as they normally do once interest in their series starts to wane. However, Ubisoft has 10,000+ employees, a gigantic technological backbone, and a gazillion dollars to do this with. Not every publisher has these luxuries.
Now, I'm sure the immediate response to what I'm saying here is "Isn't Final Fantasy XV a gigantic reimagining of the series to try and match modern trends?" And you'd be totally right. I just don't think they're actually executing on a homerun level and that some aspects of what they worked on over so many years have actually come to fall a bit out of favor over the lengthy development cycle. The structure of "set piece event" -> "open world hub where you do a bunch of generic seeming sidequests" -> "set piece event" is something that worked really well as we neared the end of last generation, but I'm not sure it's what people really want right now.
Assassin's Creed is also a series that failed to change enough going across generations, and people started to lose interest as newer, shinier series came out. Now Ubisoft is off trying to completely reinvent the series in response, as they normally do once interest in their series starts to wane. However, Ubisoft has 10,000+ employees, a gigantic technological backbone, and a gazillion dollars to do this with. Not every publisher has these luxuries.
Now, I'm sure the immediate response to what I'm saying here is "Isn't Final Fantasy XV a gigantic reimagining of the series to try and match modern trends?" And you'd be totally right. I just don't think they're actually executing on a homerun level and that some aspects of what they worked on over so many years have actually come to fall a bit out of favor over the lengthy development cycle. The structure of "set piece event" -> "open world hub where you do a bunch of generic seeming sidequests" -> "set piece event" is something that worked really well as we neared the end of last generation, but I'm not sure it's what people really want right now.
Edge_Maverick
Member
The first Watch Dogs sold a lot indeed (if that was deserved or not is another discussion heh). I might be complete wrong here, but I just don't see a considerable level of excitement for the sequel, even with all the changes Ubisoft seems to be doing.
It actually reminds me of the AC: Unity/Syndicate situation, where the next game (even if considered a better product) suffered from the previous' bad reception/word of mouth. Unless I'm crazy and the first WD was actually super well received and overdelivered >_>
But yeah, they've got the munny so... maybe that'll also guarantee teh salez.
It actually reminds me of the AC: Unity/Syndicate situation, where the next game (even if considered a better product) suffered from the previous' bad reception/word of mouth. Unless I'm crazy and the first WD was actually super well received and overdelivered >_>
But yeah, they've got the munny so... maybe that'll also guarantee teh salez.
Cosmo Clock 21
Banned
Unlike with mainline MH, Nintendo doesn't inherently have anything to gain from Stories. I doubt they would help out without something else entering the equation (Capcom being like LOL WE'RE TAKING MH5 TO TRINITY IF YOU DON'T)
Well there are Monster Hunter Stories Amiibos...