Sales Do Matter. Isn't It Obvious?

[QUOTE="Hexagon_777"][QUOTE="DeadMan1290"]

Answer this though.....If a game sells only ONE THOUSAND copies but it's an awesome game that you really like....You won't buy it because it's sales sucked?

DeadMan1290

What does that have to do with anything discussed in my thread? You're obviously getting the wrong idea.

Your whole pointhasn't been that??:? Then what IS the point??

I would obviously buy it if it is a good game and it suited my tastes. I am talking more about console sales, though. What you asked seems entirely irrelevant to me.

games are more important/threadflashattackfina

[QUOTE="DeadMan1290"][QUOTE="Hexagon_777"][QUOTE="DeadMan1290"]

Answer this though.....If a game sells only ONE THOUSAND copies but it's an awesome game that you really like....You won't buy it because it's sales sucked?

Hexagon_777

What does that have to do with anything discussed in my thread? You're obviously getting the wrong idea.

Your whole pointhasn't been that??:? Then what IS the point??

I would obviously buy it if it is a good game and it suited my tastes. I am talking more about console sales, though. What you asked seems entirely irrelevant to me.

[QUOTE="Hexagon_777"][QUOTE="DeadMan1290"][QUOTE="Hexagon_777"][QUOTE="DeadMan1290"]

Answer this though.....If a game sells only ONE THOUSAND copies but it's an awesome game that you really like....You won't buy it because it's sales sucked?

hamstergeddon

What does that have to do with anything discussed in my thread? You're obviously getting the wrong idea.

Your whole pointhasn't been that??:? Then what IS the point??

I would obviously buy it if it is a good game and it suited my tastes. I am talking more about console sales, though. What you asked seems entirely irrelevant to me.

Teh ownage, I am embarassed:cry:

[QUOTE="sonicmj1"][QUOTE="Hexagon_777"][QUOTE="sonicmj1"]

So sales matter because they lead to games?

If that's so, then that should show itself when the games are released. It generally is the case, but shouldn't we be focusing on the important end result (the games) rather than a cause of the result?

Hexagon_777

If there is no cause, there is no result.

But that isn't always true. The Dreamcast had plenty of great games without too many sales. Heck, all consoles get some good games. There are a number of reasons why a good game is made for a certain console, and sales are only one factor.

The games are what matter. The sales are only a vehicle to bring games.

The Dreamcast had many great games, correct, but did it have the sales to keep it alive and let it bask in even more great games? No. Like you said, sales bring us games. Without sales, what would keep the console alive and make it get support?

Because of that, it was surpassed in game quality by other consoles, like the PS2. It was no longer the best console, because it didn't have the most great games.

See how that works?

[QUOTE="Hexagon_777"]

The Dreamcast had many great games, correct, but did it have the sales to keep it alive and let it bask in even more great games? No. Like you said, sales bring us games. Without sales, what would keep the console alive and make it get support?

sonicmj1

Because of that, it was surpassed in game quality by other consoles, like the PS2. It was no longer the best console, because it didn't have the most great games.

See how that works?

Are you agreeing with me, then?

Thanks hamstergeddon btw. DeadMan1290 doesn't seem to be getting it.

[QUOTE="sonicmj1"][QUOTE="Hexagon_777"]

The Dreamcast had many great games, correct, but did it have the sales to keep it alive and let it bask in even more great games? No. Like you said, sales bring us games. Without sales, what would keep the console alive and make it get support?

Hexagon_777

Because of that, it was surpassed in game quality by other consoles, like the PS2. It was no longer the best console, because it didn't have the most great games.

See how that works?

Are you agreeing with me, then?

Thanks hamstergeddon btw. DeadMan1290 doesn't seem to be getting it.

Well, at that point, it didn't have as good games. I'm judging this by games, and I'm getting the same results as you are.

I just don't see why you'd use sales as a metric. We're gamers, so I'd think that games would be the important thing. If sales are important because of their impact on game quality, then why not use game quality itself, instead of resorting to something different?

[QUOTE="sonicmj1"][QUOTE="Hexagon_777"]

The Dreamcast had many great games, correct, but did it have the sales to keep it alive and let it bask in even more great games? No. Like you said, sales bring us games. Without sales, what would keep the console alive and make it get support?

Hexagon_777

Because of that, it was surpassed in game quality by other consoles, like the PS2. It was no longer the best console, because it didn't have the most great games.

See how that works?

Are you agreeing with me, then?

Thanks hamstergeddon btw. DeadMan1290 doesn't seem to be getting it.

Like hamstergeddon said in his previous post

''I just don't see why you'd use sales as a metric. We're gamers, so I'd think that games would be the important thing. If sales are important because of their impact on game quality, then why not use game quality itself, instead of resorting to something different?''

Oh I get it alright.

You want to know why I don't care about sales? Because every week it seems when a cool looking game gets announced and shown off, it's always for PS3/360/PC. Even with the PS3's apparent "dreadful" sales, it's still getting all these awesome looking games announced for it, while the Wii gets casual crap no one cares about.

Now tell me, why should I care about sales when my systems are still getting the games? :|

Nobody is saying that when you buy a game you should look at how well its doing. Just in SW sales matter more than funness. Sales fact. Fun opinions. How can anything be decided when no one agrees? pfft really who really won the past SWs? They must be still debating.

its funny that people say games over sales and then dont say why.Really powerful words there.

If u get better games u willl have more to play on your console,yeah sales get some beter 3rd party support but not a lot IMO,most of the games that will come to a console are decided in advance via manufacturer and developer deals.

And a game with lots of sales doesnt always get sequels this also works both ways!!Well anyway almost all games we get these days are sequels or "spiritual" succesors.

Some examples System Shock really low sales but got a sequel SS2,Gabriel Knight...

Diablo2 one of the best selling games still no sequel:cry: it will prob get it in the future tho,Grim Fandango etc

Also sales dont equal quality look at 50cent****and Spiderman3...

Like hamstergeddon said in his previous post

''I just don't see why you'd use sales as a metric. We're gamers, so I'd think that games would be the important thing. If sales are important because of their impact on game quality, then why not use game quality itself, instead of resorting to something different?''

Oh I get it alright.

DeadMan1290

First off, hamstergeddon did not say that. Secondly, why can't we use both? Furthermore, sales help one predict the future of a console a lot more accurately. More support, increased chance of receiving a quality title and your console will have a longer lifespan. This is not only about games, but about how long your console will last. The longer it lives, the more time there is to produce quality titles for it.

You want to know why I don't care about sales? Because every week it seems when a cool looking game gets announced and shown off, it's always for PS3/360/PC. Even with the PS3's apparent "dreadful" sales, it's still getting all these awesome looking games announced for it, while the Wii gets casual crap no one cares about.

Now tell me, why should I care about sales when my systems are still getting the games? :|

Not-A-Stalker

Casual crap no one cares about? The casuals sure seem to do. Furthermore, the Wii has three AAA games, all of which are hardcore, while the PS3 only has one. The 360 has seven AAA games. Going by AAAe games, the Wii has one and the PS3 has none. The 360 has none as well, unless you count Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter. I am using gamerankings here by the way. The opinion of many review sites > the opinion of one review site after all.

If u get better games u willl have more to play on your console,yeah sales get some beter 3rd party support but not a lot IMO,most of the games that will come to a console are decided in advance via manufacturer and developer deals.

And a game with lots of sales doesnt always get sequels this also works both ways!!Well anyway almost all games we get these days are sequels or "spiritual" succesors.

Some examples System Shock really low sales but got a sequel SS2,Gabriel Knight...

Diablo2 one of the best selling games still no sequel:cry: it will prob get it in the future tho,Grim Fandango etc

Also sales dont equal quality look at 50cent****and Spiderman3...

dispator

I am not talking about game sales.

Sales mean that your console will

1. Receive support.

2. That the chances of your system getting good games is increased.

Hexagon_777

This is why people shouldn't care too much about sales by themselves. The offical and only senseful metric for what a good console is is the amount of games. Sales is part of the equation in getting more games.

Or would you consider a system that sells massively well with a rather poor library better than a system that sold mediocrely with an amazing library?

Sales have mattered in every generation so far. However, now that the Wii is winning, no one cares for them anymore it seems. Why is that so? Is it not common sense that developers will support the console with the largest userbase? They would certainly reach more people that way which increases the chances of their games selling more. Furthermore, the PS2 did get trash games as well, but they also had a few gems here and there.

Yes, we are gamers and we care about games. Nevertheless, the link between sales and games is apparent undeniable. The more games there are, the higher the chances that one of them will be a good game. The PS1 and the PS2 are perfect examples of this. I do not understand why we suddenly exclude sales. People comment with silly remarks such as "I have no stock at Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft, so why should I care if their consoles sell a lot? I get nothing from it." O rly?

Sales mean that your console will

1. Receive support.

2. That the chances of your system getting good games is increased.

3. That your console will have a longer lifespan if it does well.

Point 3 is actually quite interesting. Why do you think Microsoft dropped support for the Xbox so early? Well, they had to get a headstart. That's what they thought anyway. The PS3 would be one heck of a challenge after all. If the Xbox had done better in sales, it would have received a higher amount of support, higher chances of getting good games and a longer lifespan.

Oh, and the Wii and the PS3 have only been out for what? 9 months? Or is it 10? Nobody expected much from the Wii in the beginning, did they? Developers were basically overrun with the success of the Wii.

Hexagon_777

While I agree with your general point, there are two problems that do seem to be occurring.

1) I have long held the notion that the vast majority of developers are lazy and unoriginal and anything that even looks remotely different or unique freightens them. It's why so many cry about the PS3 being "difficult" despite the power potential. It's why so many games are rushed sequals, quick ports or poor rip-offs of better games. Developers (and publishers too) want to just do what they've always done how they've always done it...and just slap a new coat of paint on it and call it new. It's what they've always done.

This problem only seems to be getting worse as developing games costs more money, or as publishers look to cut costs by taking less chances on original ideas so they can increase profits.

2) Never underestimate the power of biased, preconceived opinions. How many times have we seen developers completely IGNORE the sales of the Wii and say, "Well, all that is out right now are kiddie games and mini-games.Clearly the fans must not want "mature" games so we aren't even going to bother." Capcom has done it, the Silent Hill team has done it, etc, etc. So what happens is, regardless of sales, developers don't care. They think that just because only one game is out now that is all people who buy the Wii now care about. It makes no sense but that's what they are doing. they aren't even taking a chance. Instead they would rather dump a crappy PS2 port on the console, or make a crappy arcade shooter so that when the crappy game inevitably fails, they can pretend it's not their fault AND reinforce their ignorant biases at the same time.

[QUOTE="Hexagon_777"]

Sales mean that your console will

1. Receive support.

2. That the chances of your system getting good games is increased.

Grive

This is why people shouldn't care too much about sales by themselves. The offical and only senseful metric for what a good console is is the amount of games. Sales is part of the equation in getting more games.

Or would you consider a system that sells massively well with a rather poor library better than a system that sold mediocrely with an amazing library?

The PS2 had a rather poor library in general, didn't it? Yet it still had heaps of amazing games. The GameCube sold rather poorly yet had an amazing library. However, you avoid my third point, namely the lifespan a console has/will have. The PS2 is still going strong. The GameCube is dead. There's still support for the PS2 yet no support for the GameCube. If the GameCube had sold better, it may still be running like the PS2 is today and would still get a game here and there.

[QUOTE="Hexagon_777"]

Sales have mattered in every generation so far. However, now that the Wii is winning, no one cares for them anymore it seems. Why is that so? Is it not common sense that developers will support the console with the largest userbase? They would certainly reach more people that way which increases the chances of their games selling more. Furthermore, the PS2 did get trash games as well, but they also had a few gems here and there.

Yes, we are gamers and we care about games. Nevertheless, the link between sales and games is apparent undeniable. The more games there are, the higher the chances that one of them will be a good game. The PS1 and the PS2 are perfect examples of this. I do not understand why we suddenly exclude sales. People comment with silly remarks such as "I have no stock at Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft, so why should I care if their consoles sell a lot? I get nothing from it." O rly?

Sales mean that your console will

1. Receive support.

2. That the chances of your system getting good games is increased.

3. That your console will have a longer lifespan if it does well.

Point 3 is actually quite interesting. Why do you think Microsoft dropped support for the Xbox so early? Well, they had to get a headstart. That's what they thought anyway. The PS3 would be one heck of a challenge after all. If the Xbox had done better in sales, it would have received a higher amount of support, higher chances of getting good games and a longer lifespan.

Oh, and the Wii and the PS3 have only been out for what? 9 months? Or is it 10? Nobody expected much from the Wii in the beginning, did they? Developers were basically overrun with the success of the Wii.

ZIMdoom

While I agree with your general point, there are two problems that do seem to be occurring.

1) I have long held the notion that the vast majority of developers are lazy and unoriginal and anything that even looks remotely different or unique freightens them. It's why so many cry about the PS3 being "difficult" despite the power potential. It's why so many games are rushed sequals, quick ports or poor rip-offs of better games. Developers (and publishers too) want to just do what they've always done how they've always done it...and just slap a new coat of paint on it and call it new. It's what they've always done.

This problem only seems to be getting worse as developing games costs more money, or as publishers look to cut costs by taking less chances on original ideas so they can increase profits.

2) Never underestimate the power of biased, preconceived opinions. How many times have we seen developers completely IGNORE the sales of the Wii and say, "Well, all that is out right now are kiddie games and mini-games.Clearly the fans must not want "mature" games so we aren't even going to bother." Capcom has done it, the Silent Hill team has done it, etc, etc. So what happens is, regardless of sales, developers don't care. They think that just because only one game is out now that is all people who buy the Wii now care about. It makes no sense but that's what they are doing. they aren't even taking a chance. Instead they would rather dump a crappy PS2 port on the console, or make a crappy arcade shooter so that when the crappy game inevitably fails, they can pretend it's not their fault AND reinforce their ignorant biases at the same time.

Very well written. Check this article out: The Third Degree

[QUOTE="DeadMan1290"]

Like hamstergeddon said in his previous post

''I just don't see why you'd use sales as a metric. We're gamers, so I'd think that games would be the important thing. If sales are important because of their impact on game quality, then why not use game quality itself, instead of resorting to something different?''

Oh I get it alright.

Hexagon_777

First off, hamstergeddon did not say that. Secondly, why can't we use both? Furthermore, sales help one predict the future of a console a lot more accurately. More support, increased chance of receiving a quality title and your console will have a longer lifespan. This is not only about games, but about how long your console will last. The longer it lives, the more time there is to produce quality titles for it.

You want to know why I don't care about sales? Because every week it seems when a cool looking game gets announced and shown off, it's always for PS3/360/PC. Even with the PS3's apparent "dreadful" sales, it's still getting all these awesome looking games announced for it, while the Wii gets casual crap no one cares about.

Now tell me, why should I care about sales when my systems are still getting the games? :|

Not-A-Stalker

Casual crap no one cares about? The casuals sure seem to do. Furthermore, the Wii has three AAA games, all of which are hardcore, while the PS3 only has one. The 360 has seven AAA games. Going by AAAe games, the Wii has one and the PS3 has none. The 360 has none as well, unless you count Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter. I am using gamerankings here by the way. The opinion of many review sites > the opinion of one review site after all.

If u get better games u willl have more to play on your console,yeah sales get some beter 3rd party support but not a lot IMO,most of the games that will come to a console are decided in advance via manufacturer and developer deals.

And a game with lots of sales doesnt always get sequels this also works both ways!!Well anyway almost all games we get these days are sequels or "spiritual" succesors.

Some examples System Shock really low sales but got a sequel SS2,Gabriel Knight...

Diablo2 one of the best selling games still no sequel:cry: it will prob get it in the future tho,Grim Fandango etc

Also sales dont equal quality look at 50cent****and Spiderman3...

dispator

I am not talking about game sales.

More games getting good sales equals more 3rd party support more than console sales do because thats what devs are looking at,and which genresalesthe most on which platform thats the economicaliy logic thing to look at from a game makers view point!!

Further more i was giving u examples why we should be more focused on the ammount of quality games on a platform then how much it sells,couse quantity isnt quality,lots of**** sells in the world these days not only in consoles and games mind you.In the end sales matter but in no way do they matter as much as games nor they should to you,me and to anyone calling himself a GAMER

[QUOTE="Grive"][QUOTE="Hexagon_777"]

Hexagon_777

The PS2 had a rather poor library in general, didn't it? Yet it still had heaps of amazing games. The GameCube sold rather poorly yet had an amazing library. However, you avoid my third point, namely the lifespan a console has/will have. The PS2 is still going strong. The GameCube is dead. There's still support for the PS2 yet no support for the GameCube. If the GameCube had sold better, it may still be running like the PS2 is today and would still get a game here and there.

[QUOTE="Hexagon_777"]

Very well written. Check this article out: The Third Degree

ZIMdoom

PS2 had a great and diverse library,btw i think that the consoles life cycle completely depends on the manufacturer and for how long will they support it!

Nintendo and esspecialy MS just wanted start better and to focus on this gen,so far i think that was a good decision.

No matter how much the Wii sales it's games are not going to be able to compete on a technical lvl with the 360 or ps3.

I don't see how anyone could have definitively said one or the other in this thread. Both matter. They're not mutually exclusive issues, Casey. One affects the other most of the time. Other outside issues affect them both. To suppose that one was is *the way* tries to make black and white an issue that has all kinds of shades of grey mixed in.

You can't simplify complicated issues like this into simple 2+2. It will fail just like Gamespots new review system.

Dreams-Visions

Read that.

[QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"]

I don't see how anyone could have definitively said one or the other in this thread. Both matter. They're not mutually exclusive issues, Casey. One affects the other most of the time. Other outside issues affect them both. To suppose that one was is *the way* tries to make black and white an issue that has all kinds of shades of grey mixed in.

You can't simplify complicated issues like this into simple 2+2. It will fail just like Gamespots new review system.

Hexagon_777

Read that.

sales = potential
games = results

in the end, it's about the games.

[QUOTE="NECR0CHILD313"]

Regardless of Red Steel's quality, is it a casual-oriented game? Did it not break the 1 million mark?

squirrel337

Oh wow 1 million. How many copies did halo 3 sell? Oh right 1 million and the games not even out.

lol @ comparing red steel to halo 3. You were being the funnay right?!

This subject about "Games Vs. Sales" has been blown out of proportion all thanks to Casey. The truth is, Games and Sales are both equally important. Games and Sales should be both counted in "Quantity of games sold" not "Quality of games rated."

Regarding to Wii not having games, it should be considered and reminded all over again that developers counted the Wii out before it was even released. The lack of games are not due to graphical capabilities but because it takes time to develop a game regardless of the graphics needed. Creating a new game will take at least 1-2 years depending on the game. The Wii has not yet reach 1 year and you expect games to come over it right away? At least Wii has a good excuse for nothing much games and it's not their fault; the blame is on developers as EA said: "We bet on the wrong horse."

X360 not having the sales as it should have despite having the best games so far, has no excuse and that the blame is on Microsoft themselves.So the logic about games matters, should be true, but X360 tells a different story. But at least X360 has most of the games.

PS3 in the other hand does not have the sales nor the games rigth now. For a console that cost about $500-600, the consumer cannot afford to spend such amount with it's best games coming out next year.

Again, games and sales are important and count them both in terms of "quantity" not "quality" so that it is more objective than subjective.

[QUOTE="Hexagon_777"][QUOTE="squirrel337"][QUOTE="NECR0CHILD313"]

Regardless of Red Steel's quality, is it a casual-oriented game? Did it not break the 1 million mark?

squirrel337

Oh wow 1 million. How many copies did halo 3 sell? Oh right 1 million and the games not even out.

What does that have to do with anything? Furthermore, Halo 3 is first-party as well. I thought those don't count. ;)

The point is one million is NOT a big deal. Selling one million is not amazing.

Sales have mattered in every generation so far. However, now that the Wii is winning, no one cares for them anymore it seems. Why is that so? Is it not common sense that developers will support the console with the largest userbase? They would certainly reach more people that way which increases the chances of their games selling more. Furthermore, the PS2 did get trash games as well, but they also had a few gems here and there.

Yes, we are gamers and we care about games. Nevertheless, the link between sales and games is apparent undeniable. The more games there are, the higher the chances that one of them will be a good game. The PS1 and the PS2 are perfect examples of this. I do not understand why we suddenly exclude sales. People comment with silly remarks such as "I have no stock at Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft, so why should I care if their consoles sell a lot? I get nothing from it." O rly?

Sales mean that your console will

1. Receive support.

2. That the chances of your system getting good games is increased.

3. That your console will have a longer lifespan if it does well.

Point 3 is actually quite interesting. Why do you think Microsoft dropped support for the Xbox so early? Well, they had to get a headstart. That's what they thought anyway. The PS3 would be one heck of a challenge after all. If the Xbox had done better in sales, it would have received a higher amount of support, higher chances of getting good games and a longer lifespan.

Oh, and the Wii and the PS3 have only been out for what? 9 months? Or is it 10? Nobody expected much from the Wii in the beginning, did they? Developers were basically overrun with the success of the Wii.

Hexagon_777

The Wii isn't intended to target the hardcore audience. Developers won't put out their games on a system just because it has a larger userbas; their games has to sell well and appeal to the larger userbase. You can clearly see their not selling their souls to make strictly casual games. People think Wii is the PS2. It's not.

/ thread.

The winner of system wars has always been determined by who had the most sales, and don't tell me it hasn't Casey because if you would have asked in the past, what system won last generation, pretty much everyone said the PS2 because it sold 120 million consoles. And if you say it has always been determined by games, then tell me why you had to come up with a new system to determine how we count the games? The only reason why lemmings and cows want to go and change the rules now is because the Wii has been more successful than the PS3 sales wise, and overtook the 360 in sales even though it had a year head start.

Now I'm not trying to downplay games, because they are certainly important, but I just don't see how sales can't be included at all as a factor in determining the winner of the console war. What people are basically saying is that sales mean nothing when in fact they mean a whole heck of a lot when concerning the life span of a console. Are sales the only thing developers look at when determining what system to develop for? Of course not, but it does play a huge part in it. With more sales comes more games which means the possibilities are higher that there will be a great game.

Think about this. Why do you think developers flocked to the PS2 instead of the gamecube? Could it be because the N64 flopped sales wise compared to the PS1's 100 million userbase? Now why do the think developers flocked to the PS3 at first instead of the Wii? It is definitely because of the PS2's sales compared to the horrible sales of the Gamecube.

In the end, game reviews are someone's opinion, and the number of console sales are facts. Facts>Opinions, but according to the end results of the poll for sales vs. games, one reviewers opinion on a game will determine the winner of the console war. Now one person's opinion is greater than our own.

Well at least one thing is certain,here more ownage can be dished out on Flops and AAAs than on sales charts.

Maybe we can just call it a hollow victory.

Put an asterisk beside it that says "Most games are casual crap".

The winner of system wars has always been determined by who had the most sales, and don't tell me it hasn't Casey because if you would have asked in the past, what system won last generation, pretty much everyone said the PS2 because it sold 120 million consoles. And if you say it has always been determined by games, then tell me why you had to come up with a new system to determine how we count the games? The only reason why lemmings and cows want to go and change the rules now is because the Wii has been more successful than the PS3 sales wise, and overtook the 360 in sales even though it had a year head start.

Now I'm not trying to downplay games, because they are certainly important, but I just don't see how sales can't be included at all as a factor in determining the winner of the console war. What people are basically saying is that sales mean nothing when in fact they mean a whole heck of a lot when concerning the life span of a console. Are sales the only thing developers look at when determining what system to develop for? Of course not, but it does play a huge part in it. With more sales comes more games which means the possibilities are higher that there will be a great game.

Think about this. Why do you think developers flocked to the PS2 instead of the gamecube? Could it be because the N64 flopped sales wise compared to the PS1's 100 million userbase? Now why do the think developers flocked to the PS3 at first instead of the Wii? It is definitely because of the PS2's sales compared to the horrible sales of the Gamecube.

In the end, game reviews are someone's opinion, and the number of console sales are facts. Facts>Opinions, but according to the end results of the poll for sales vs. games, one reviewers opinion on a game will determine the winner of the console war. Now one person's opinion is greater than our own.

peaceful_anger

Good post, furthermore, when we talk about games, it should not be about rating but rather games sold. No wonder why Mario Party 8 is popular despite having a flop score. Simply some hardcores, or rather neo-hardcores gamers want to change the rule and make it their point of view despite not representing the majority of the gamers.

The PS2 had a rather poor library in general, didn't it? Yet it still had heaps of amazing games. The GameCube sold rather poorly yet had an amazing library. However, you avoid my third point, namely the lifespan a console has/will have. The PS2 is still going strong. The GameCube is dead. There's still support for the PS2 yet no support for the GameCube. If the GameCube had sold better, it may still be running like the PS2 is today and would still get a game here and there.

Hexagon_777

Uhmmm... I am a long time Nintendo fan who has owned every Nintendo console each generation (not just buying them off Ebay a year ago) and own the Wii now. I am also a long time Playstation fan who hasownedthe PS1 and PS2 since launch.

The game library for the GC sucked and the PS2's library is quite possibly the single greatest game library I have ever seen in my 20+ years of gaming. I'm not certain what you mean by the PS2 having a poor library while the GC had a strong library.

[QUOTE="Hexagon_777"]

The PS2 had a rather poor library in general, didn't it? Yet it still had heaps of amazing games. The GameCube sold rather poorly yet had an amazing library. However, you avoid my third point, namely the lifespan a console has/will have. The PS2 is still going strong. The GameCube is dead. There's still support for the PS2 yet no support for the GameCube. If the GameCube had sold better, it may still be running like the PS2 is today and would still get a game here and there.

ZIMdoom

Uhmmm... I am a long time Nintendo fan who has owned every Nintendo console each generation (not just buying them off Ebay a year ago) and own the Wii now. I am also a long time Playstation fan who hasownedthe PS1 and PS2 since launch.

The game library for the GC sucked and the PS2's library is quite possibly the single greatest game library I have ever seen in my 20+ years of gaming. I'm not certain what you mean by the PS2 having a poor library while the GC had a strong library.

This thread's still up?? Man, first sales, now the PS2 had a poor library...Umm Hexagon_777??

last gen had such a clear winner that there was no need for a way of counting it all up. CaseyWegner

But did salesmattered as a whole with the winner?

Of course they do.

Do you honestly believe that independant observers will decide who won a console war based on GS reviews? Please.

SNES won because it sold more than the genesis/mega drive. PS1 won because it sold the most, the same is true with the PS2.

The PS2 had a rather poor library in general, didn't it? Yet it still had heaps of amazing games. The GameCube sold rather poorly yet had an amazing library. However, you avoid my third point, namely the lifespan a console has/will have. The PS2 is still going strong. The GameCube is dead. There's still support for the PS2 yet no support for the GameCube. If the GameCube had sold better, it may still be running like the PS2 is today and would still get a game here and there.

Hexagon_777

It's not that I ignored it, but rather that I did not disagree on that part.

As for the library itself, I do not believe an amazing library to be determined by the average score. Basically, a library with, say, 100 amazing games and 10000 crap ones is better than one with 50 amazing games and 10 crap ones. Of course, the second library is better for those who do not think their purchases, as the odds of them getting a poor game are lower... but I don't mind those people.

The PS3 had the best library of last gen, even if the Gamecube had a vastly superior good to bad game ratio.

Everything goes in a vicious cycle. Games will always be more important than sales, but the point is that sales directly affect games. When the systems first launch, it depends on launch titles and technology. Once the sales figures start rolling in, developers look at them and then decide what systems to make their games for. Once a system gets on a roll, it's not easy to slow it down because of this cycle.

A little off-topic, but the same thing happens with games. Wii Sports is a cool game but has kinda screwed Nintendo over; developers look at it (plus Nintendo's reputation) and then say that hardcore games won't sell. And then, since they didn't make the game, they have even more reason to believe themselves. And other developers look and say the exact same thing, and then try to make a crappy Wii Sports rip-off. In my eyes, one game can decide a system/company's path... just look at Wii Sports or Halo.

why are people saying games matter more? like you needed to tell us that :roll:

more slaes = more games

more games = more sales

i guess developers completely abondoned the gamecube because it was purple :lol:

the ps2 had the best games because it had the weakest hardware :lol:

nope, the correct answer to those questions is sales :) People you say sales don't matter are just lying to themselves, I guess you'd all be happy if the 360 sold 2 consoles a year. yeah, the quality games would just keep rollin wouldn't they? because you know, sales don't matter :roll:

I think people who discount sales are doing so to aggressively separate the wii from 360/ps3, but mainly the 360, because games is the one lead it has held onto since launch.

If you say that sales are unimportant, and that games are the most important all you are doing is changing the original argument.Some guywas talking about sales, but you dont want to talk about sales because you wont win that argument, so you try to twist it into an argument about games. Truth is that there are many very different things to converse about on system wars, games and sales are two of them.

It's like this: suppose I made an argument about the RRoD problems, and included a link about some consumers getting shafted. Would you retort that RRoD isn't a problem and shouldn't be discussed on system wars, because system wars is all about who has the most games and the highest rated games?

NO! of course not. We can discuss anything that affects us as gamers. If we have to suffer with hardware problems, then we can discuss that. If our system's sales are affecting developer support, and all those things TC mentioned, we should be allowed to make the point. Why are sales threads the one's that are okay to hijack with args about game scores?

IMO, the games only argument is pretty much 100% perpetrated by lemmings who want to concentrate on the present at all costs, when in reality consoles are an investment in the future ever bit as the present

You can't play sales. And don't give me that bs about sales = good future games. 360 didn't need good sales to get good games. It launched with an AAA, got plenty more in the following months, and now has an incredible software line-up. This must be the first generation where the console with the least good games is getting great sales. PS2, SNES, NES, and PS1 were worthy of winning in sales. The Wii is not worthy. All the above consoles I listed, except for the Wii, catered more to the hardcore audience. If the market were the same as it has been from 1985-2005, without this casual dumbed down crap software Nintendo offers, you wouldn't see them getting sales like this. They don't get sales because they have quality software, they have sales because they made a console full of watered down shallow casual titles. PS2, PS1, NES, and SNES didn't need to do that to win. Those were clean wins. It's pathetic that only now, after over a 10 year sales losing streak, Nintendo fanboys claim ownage with sales. V_Isle

first off, the 360 did have sales bringing it good games, as it launched impressively. The wii also did okay in sales for the holidays, not as good as the 360 sold in that time, and yet it had some good games. Wiisports, Rayman and Twilight Princess were great games, and it was quickly followed by Trauma Center andWarioware, among others. Remember that there were different circumstances around each console. The wii was pretty much abandoned by devs at first which is why games like RE4 and Red Steel surpasses sales expectations, and why MP3 is doing the same.--(and I'll just throw that in as an arg against the wii not being hardcore)

Second, the ps2 crushed the dreamcast in sales very early, killing that console before any of ps2's decent games came out. The console was famous for its poor launch lineup. And so I suppose the ps2 was not 'worthy' of victory either. Face it, no matter what the reason a console is selling well, it will get great games regardless. Devs don't care why

I'll admit that a lot of the software on the wii isn't good, and also that nintendo has been saying some of the bad things, affirming the casualization of the industry (which I dont think has any chance of happening, just business talk). How about you admit that the boost in sales for the wii can only be a good thing for that console, as a wii with sales is much better than a wii without sales.

yes, sales are important. But games are more important.

And high sales lead to better games. So it all works out well for us :)

BuryMe

Winner.

Sales matter,but not as much as some people say they are.VGobbsesser

Exactly. SCE do some of the best games for the PS3, Sony's 1st and 2nd parties, not necessarily 3rd parties. For example, Ape Escape, God of War, Ratchet and Clank etc...