I made this thread, and it got locked for the fanboyish way I formatted it, so I will recreate it with less bias. this is an important discussion for system wars.
When you compare the sales of two titles, you MUST take into account how much money was allocated for the games advertising budget. Two of the most common games that fanboys like to compare every game's sales up to, are Halo 3, and Modern Warfare 2. Games like Killzone 2 are constantly belittled by fanboys of the 2 former franchises as being "crap" because their game "sold" more. What these fanboys fail to take into account is the fact that not only did Microsoft spend $200 Million dollars marketing Halo 3:
While the $55 million spent on making Halo 3 pales into insignificance compared to the$200 million Microsoft reportedly spent on marketing the game.
But that Activision gave Modern Warfare 2 a $200 LAUNCH advertisment campaign (that and the stimulus and resurgance map packs had their own seperate marketing campaigns).
Call of Duty [Modern Warfare 2] cost $40 million to $50 million to produce, people close to the project said, about as much as a mid-size film.Including marketing expenses and the cost of producing and distributing discs, the launch budget was $200 million, on par with a summer popcorn movie -- and extremely high for a video game.
All compared to Sony's measly£2 million advertisment campaign (Im from the US, but think thats about $4 Million USD).
Now, it is foolish and silly to compare a game like Killzone 2 to Halo 3 or Modern Warfare 2 in terms of sales considering this. Now, this has NOTHING to do with the quality of the titles here, but to sit here and say that Halo 3 sells so well because its just that damn good, is just rediculous. Especially since games like Uncharted 2 scored higher than both of them on almost every site, yet sold less, should be enough to show you that sales are indicative of NOTHING more than the size of a games marketing budget.
Discuss.
Log in to comment