Holiday Game Sales Semi-Merry After All?

Thanks to CNN for its report discussing specific sales numbers for November's top videogames. The report, shortly following previous analyst worries, mentions that "game software sales climbed 7 percent, as compared to November 2002", fairly reasonable, but still short of (possibly excessive?) analyst estimates. GameSpot has further commentary, mentioning the big winners ("Strong sales of True Crime: The Streets of L.A. (630,000 copies) and Tony Hawk's Underground (554,000) let Activision skate its way to a 46 increase in sales over November 2002"), and the not so fortunate ("November's big loser was Take Two Interactive, whose sales plummeted 47 percent. Hopes that Manhunt would help fill in for the absence of a [new] Grand Theft Auto game proved woefully unfounded, as the controversial game only shipped 75,000 units, a fraction of the 502,000 GTA Double Packs sold.")

Comments

Rockstar Needn't Worry

[Babbster]

I can see Manhunt being eschewed for holidy gift-giving because of its over-the-top violent nature. I wouldn't be surprised, however, if it sells at a more brisk pace once the season of peace and love ends and the season of returns and gift certificate spending begins.

Re:Rockstar Needn't Worry

[Wyatt Earp]

I see it being eschewed because it looks about as pointless as State of Emergency.

Re:Rockstar Needn't Worry

[bmnc]

exactly. how about not releasing games that will automatically turn off the mum and dad shoppers?

hardcore gamers surprisingly count for a reltively small market share (some /. article linked somewhere). the joe averge buying for his kid are the real money earners.

Re:Rockstar Needn't Worry

[Babbster]

How about releasing the games you want to release and letting the chips fall where they may? Gamers of all stripes complain about the lack of originality in games, usually specifically concerned that game developers/publishers don't want to take risks. I know I'm fighting the CW here, but I would consider Manhunt to be a risk - especially in a market filled with RPGs that too often tread the same old level treadmilling ground, action platformers that struggle for even a semblance of originality and first-person shooters which are the most repetitive of all.

Besides, a company that can do a re-release of two games that have been out for "ages" (gaming ages being pretty short) and sell another HALF MILLION copies doesn't have to worry much if a title or two have trouble finding an audience.

What's funniest about the tizzy over Manhunt is that this kind of game (gory, ultra-violent) is NOT the norm. Even the supposed "hardcore" lament the direction gaming is going while ignoring the fact that the bulk of titles released are rated E and T.

Hell, even the people who generate that top ten worst (in terms of being "unsafe" for children) games list had to include DOA: Xtreme Beach Volleyball (a game that gets an M based on cute animated girls in bikinis) and Warcraft 3: Frozen Throne (rated T for Heaven's sake, not to mention being pure fantasy). In other words, there were so few putrid M-rated games on the market that relatively innocuous titles get lumped in with the likes of Manhunt.

In short (if that's possible now), I could make a lot of money selling "chill pills" if all the people who were in need decided to take one.

Re:Rockstar Needn't Worry

[Anonymous Coward]

hardcore gamer != fan of games with "hardcore themes"

Make a note of this. BMX XXX was the brainchild of neanderthals who couldn't grasp this simple concept.

And if anyone from Activision is reading this, tattoo it backwards on your fucking forehead, so that you read it in the bathroom mirror when you - hopefully - brush your teeth every morning.

Re:Rockstar Needn't Worry

[Babbster]

Just to keep the record from doing any 90-degree turns, Activision had nothing whatsoever to do with BMX XXX, Manhunt, GTA, etc. BMX XXX, if that's what you were referring to in that last sentence, was developed and published by Acclaim.

Re:Rockstar Needn't Worry

[Babbster]

I see it being eschewed because it looks about as pointless as State of Emergency.

And yet it receives a 79.1% rating (an average of the review scores from 36 different sources) at gamerankings.com, only 0.3% less than Metal Arms (which I've read a lot of good things about), 1.2% better than True Crime (a game that has been selling well and has a sequel already in the works)...In fact, it's 8.8% better than State of Emergency for the PS2.

Of course, never having played a game doesn't tend to stop people from insulting it, just as it never stops pre-release hype.

Re:Rockstar Needn't Worry

[Anonymous Coward]

It was a slip of the fingers, though I'm not surprised that it happened while I was on the warpath. Yes, against Acclaim, not Activision.

I once typed "Taiwan" instead of "Thailand," repeatedly, in a heated mailing list message. The ML digests for the next two days consisted entirely of flames from all sides, jokes at my expense, and my apologies. *sigh*

Re:Rockstar Needn't Worry

[Oddly_Drac]

"the joe averge buying for his kid are the real money earners."

Don't be daft. The game buying demographic hovers at low to mid 20s, and has done for a number of years.

Re:Rockstar Needn't Worry

[leifm]

I think it's headed for the bargin bin after the xmas season. Rockstar games are usually hard to rent, and at my local Hollywood almost every copy of Manhunt is in, it's possibly more boring than SOE was.

Re:Rockstar Needn't Worry

[bmnc]

instead of insulting me, why dont you google for the stats? Hmmmm? Too constructive huh? Wanted to have your opinion huh? Well, thats *your* opinion, and "good for you".

the hardcore are the ppl with time to play games. Ie: the ppl who aren't out earning lots of excess income to spend on games.

And in fact its not early 20s anymore its mid to late 20s. and these ppl have kids. they also have money and they dont have time. put 1 and 1 and 1 together.

Re:Rockstar Needn't Worry

[bmnc]

I agree that devs should do what they want, and i think its nice that the pub was willing to risk it, but my point was, no one should be surprised that this one isn't moving units. hell it was banned in nz, so it'll be moving exactly 0 units there, retail.

Re:Rockstar Needn't Worry

[Wyatt Earp]

I've read the reviews, it still looks pointless.

Brand Recognition

[superultra]

I don't think that Rockstar has necessarily build up enough brand recognition for it to sell every game it makes. If they did, it was all but spent on the horribly medicore State of Emergency. As much as I'm sure they'd like to disagree, since they plaster their logo nearly everywhere, I think people are far more attached to the Grand Theft Auto tagline than they are necessarily Rockstar. Really, few game companies have outside of the niche hardcore gamer. The only brand that really brings in sales on a wide mainstream basis (sales near the level of GTA) based merely on brand is EA Sports. People buy Tony Hawk Whatever because it's Tony Hawk, not necessarily because it's Activision. While you or I might pick up something because Ion Storm or Irrational or Rockstar crafted it, I don't think Christmas shopping parents look for game studios when they're picking stuff up.

Maybe if they'd called it Grand Theft Auto Manhunt it would've sold better.

Re:Brand Recognition

[Violet Null]

What brand recognition? Gamers have been burned enough time that there's really not much in the way of brand recognition. How many times has Game X done well, and then been followed by Game X Part 2, which is often as not a $50 expansion pack?

I'm one of those people who bought a PS2 just to buy GTA. I'd heard it was a fun, entertaining game. But I'm incredibly uninterested in Manhunt, because it's...well, not a fun, entertaining game. It brings nothing to the table besides excessive gore, and excessive gore simply ain't fun. I didn't play GTA because you could get a hooker, then kill her and take your cash back, no matter how much the mass media may try to convince themselves otherwise. Seems Take Two bought into that hype, too.

Re:Brand Recognition

[Oddly_Drac]

"But I'm incredibly uninterested in Manhunt, because it's...well, not a fun, entertaining game."

I've passed it by because it's a sneaker, and I don't find sneakers that much fun. A noticeable deviation from this taste question was Deus Ex, though.

Trying to sell a game on controversy, as this one was, is always a bit of a hit and miss affair, especially when we get jaded to the whole thing. Rotting corpses? Big deal. Chainsaws? Had those in Doom.

I suspect this is why 'The Sims' completely exploded without a machinegun in sight.

Re:Brand Recognition

[PainKilleR-CE]

I wasn't interested in GTA3 until I saw it and played it for a while. The GTA name just wasn't worth anything to me, even though I had played the first GTA.

On the other hand, when State of Emergency came out, my youngest step-brother bought it, because it was a Rockstar game (in other words, because it was by the makers of GTA3). Next time I talk to him, I'll see if he bought Manhunt, but I somehow doubt it. That being said, much of what Rockstar did in SoE was ported into the GTA3 engine for GTA:VC. Rockstar may be pulling sales of Manhunt based on VC's success, but it's significantly muted by the fact that many of the people that bought SoE based on GTA3's success didn't seem to like the game. Rockstar themselves are fairly well known, but most people seem to be aware that they don't always produce great games. I think the real test will come if they produce another GTA game that isn't really worthwhile, as people will probably buy it based on the success of the last 2 GTA games, but sales will drop when everyone realizes it's not as good (and the used copies start popping up everywhere).

Re:Brand Recognition

[superultra]

I worked at EB during the rise and "fall" in sales of both GTA, and with Vice City there was definitely brand recognition, or more aptly franchise recognition. The interesting thing is that most of the gamers who shop at EB generally know the release date of something. Of course we receive calls all the time asking when something is coming out, but it was nowhere near the number of calls we received asking, "When is the next GTA coming out?" since most of the people were generally not game buyers.

You may have not played GTA because you could get a hooker, but trust me: a lot of people did. A lot. I can't tell you how many times some guy came in with his friend, picked up the GTA3 box from the shelf, looked around as if he were about to reveal the secret of the universe, look at his buddy, and then nudgingly explain how he picked up a hooker and drove into an alley and the car started moving. Then, how he'd conveniently get his cash back. Obviously, that wasn't what made GTA3, but it certainly didn't hurt.

Re:Brand Recognition

[damiam]

The only brand that really brings in sales on a wide mainstream basis (sales near the level of GTA) based merely on brand is EA Sports.

There are many other major brands that can sell millions on reputation along. Blizzard and id are good examples.

Re:Brand Recognition

[ivan256]

Rockstar has lots of recognition. With the exception of Vice City (Which they bought mostly complete), everybody I know agrees that all their games suck.

Again, excluding Vice City, name a single game they've published that wasn't either buggy crap, or a sequel (read: patch) to buggy crap?

Interesting they left out Nintendo

[edwdig]

According to IGN, Mario Kart: Double Dash sold 528,000 copies so far.

The mainstream media really has something against Nintendo this round. They'll gladly complain that their sales are down over past years, but they'll also ignore the fact that sales below Nintendo norms are still really damn high compared to almost everybody else.

Re:Interesting they left out Nintendo

[MMaestro]

I don't think the public, in general, likes Nintendo. Its a very old company, which markets few games in comparison to the PS2 and lacks the monetary warchest that Microsoft's Xbox has. True, any hardcore gamer will tell you Nintendo is the elite veteran of the gaming wars, but any non-serious gamer (read : a lot) will think that Nintendo is fading and should just die out like Sega.

Think about it from the investor's point of view. The PS2 has an insane amount of games and plenty of third party developer support. The Xbox has the Microsoft name behind and the (pretty much) proven Xbox Live. While the Gamecube has no (serious) online support, relatively few top of the line games (quality over quantity I guess), and a horrible stereotype with people thinking of Nintendo systems for 'kiddie gamers.' If I wasn't a gamer and had personal insight in the gaming market, sad to say I'd have to invest in either the Xbox or the PS2.

Re:Interesting they left out Nintendo

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost nobody plays online console games.

The Gamecube is $99, $80 less than the Xbox or the PS2.

These are facts.

Nintendo's games are also very fun. This is an opinion of course.

Re:Interesting they left out Nintendo

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were being a little loose and lazy with the facts when you posted this, so....

"I don't think the public, in general, likes Nintendo."

They are no longer the only game company in town, but neither do people generally dislike them in any way. Assuming you are talking about America, I doubt that Americans base their opinions on the nonsensical criteria that you present in your post, and no amount of marketing that Sony and Microsoft do can erase the gaming heritage that millions of people have already had on Nintendo's numerous platforms.

(Side note: I heard a young mother talk to her son playing a GameBoy on the train a few days ago. In talking to the boy, she used the term, "playing Nintendo." Not since the days of the Atari 2600, when the term "playing Atari" was popular, has anybody had an affect on the popular lexicon as Nintendo already has.)

We must face it: Nintendo is the IBM of the gaming industry. They're the old-timers who may not have created the industry, only taken it to incredible heights (NES, SNES). Like IBM in the PC sector, they have been surpassed in some ways by competitors, but in other very important ways (SOFTWARE, hardware reliability/design, and customer support come to mind) they are still king of the mountain, thriving.

"Its a very old company, which markets few games in comparison to the PS2 and lacks the monetary warchest that Microsoft's Xbox has."

In so few words, you've given me a headache. Here are some thoughts, presented in response to the multitude of false assumptions you so succinctly and efficiently lump together in one sentence:

1. "Nintendo" != "GameCube"
2. "Sony" != "PS2"
3. "Microsoft" != "Xbox"
4. The age of the company is irrelevant to Nintendo's public image. Sony is about half as old, and Microsoft is about half as old as that, but if you were to mention this to _anyone_, gamer or not, you'd get a qualified stare and maybe a "So what?"
5. Microsoft's financial support of the Xbox is also irrelevant to Nintendo's public image.
6. The number of games that a console manufacturer "markets" relative to another is not a proper gauge of the company's image in the mainstream press.
7. As a software publisher, more people are buying Nintendo's games than Sony's or Microsoft's, regardless of marketing.

"True, any hardcore gamer will tell you Nintendo is the elite veteran of the gaming wars, but any non-serious gamer (read : a lot) will think that Nintendo is fading and should just die out like Sega."

Bullshit. Most non-serious gamers that I know have no opinion either way. And most serious gamers I know, who have ever spoken a single word about the subject, consider Sega's fate an unfortunate compromise, one which any company, especially Nintendo, should best avoid for our own best interests as gamers. Compare Sega's products since they went third party with their legacy of great games from the past, when they were an arcade and console company. No comparison, in 2003, Sega is a shadow. They can be compared, negatively, to the Namcos and the Capcoms of the world. Once upon a time, that was unthinkable, because they produced products that were meant to be showcases of their technolgy, on their own platforms. But now nobody blinks when you say this, because it has become true.

"Think about it from the investor's point of view."

If we do this, we are no longer considering the opinion of "the public, in general," whom you for some reason claim do not like Nintendo.

"The PS2 has an insane amount of games and plenty of third party developer support."

As does the GameBoy Advance, a Nintendo product. See item #1 above.

"The Xbox has the Microsoft name behind and the (pretty much) proven Xbox Live."

Okay. Since we have switched topics and are now talking about investors, the Microsoft name IS a positive. But the only thing that Xbox Live has proven is that an internally operat

Re:Interesting they left out Nintendo

[Oddly_Drac]

Do you need a hug or something?

Re:Interesting they left out Nintendo

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you're offering, thanks but no.

Re:Interesting they left out Nintendo

[Anonymous Coward]

/me hugs Anonymous Coward

P.S. I just got a GameCube recently with the new Zelda disc. I never had a N64, but am quite impressed at how well done that game is. Mario Sunshine is in the mail, and Wind Waker will too when the price falls (and I beat Ocarina and Majora).

Re:Interesting they left out Nintendo

[PainKilleR-CE]

Think about it from the investor's point of view.

Sony is losing massive amounts of money in their biggest business sections, movies and music, while the area they're best known for, home electronics, is barely making a profit, and the area we're discussing relies heavily on maintaining a large 3rd party base that develops games that will sell. In other words, despite the PS2 being a relatively small expenditure for Sony, it's the only thing that's really bringing in serious money for them, and that money is dependant on other companies making games, from which Sony takes a cut.

Microsoft's big expenditures are in software research. They recently cut back severely on their hardware division. The section of the company to which the XBox is attributed is losing massive amounts of cash, and the XBox' game sales may actually make those losses look better than they really are (the other hardware products in the division are losing significant cash, too). The only significant reason to invest in Microsoft is because of their strong hold in the software market, and as an investor the only reason to stay with Microsoft's XBox strategy is if you believe that Microsoft can turn around their position in the worldwide market with the next generation of the console. If MS gets to a 3rd generation product without significant gains on the #1 position, it's hard to see investors wanting them to continue in the market, unless MS can also get the hardware costs down to the point where they're making money on the project.

Nintendo is probably a little too single-market for many investors, though they have a strong foothold in a few niche markets with Pokemon cards and things like that. The GBA is a very strong competitor, even against home consoles, and the company normally makes money. Their recent losses may cause some investors to shy away, but their history of strong profits, even in hard times, may just bring more investors in if the stock price dropped because of the loss. It's also hard to guage whether or not their primary market is a good one to be a primary market, as Sony is the only other company pulling in a strong profit in this market. MS is losing money, Sega bailed out of the market, NEC and SNK have been struggling with the market in Japan for years, with some less inspired efforts in the US, and Sony wasn't even a player in the market 8 years ago, leading to the question of who's next, and what does it take to survive and profit in this market?

Re:Interesting they left out Nintendo

[kabocox]

Nintendo doesn't have all the behind the scenes resources that Sony or MS have.

Re:Interesting they left out Nintendo

[leifm]

I'd guess this is because Nintendo isn't doing anything particularly exciting. They are doing what they've always done, making fun games for the whole family, while there is a war coming between Sony and MS.

Re:Interesting they left out Nintendo

[jellybean_bunny]

I think that dropping the Gamecube price to $99 was a very smart move. I was initially going to buy my brother some PC games, but I found out that he has a n old PC. So I got him a Gamecube with the Zelda game pack and 2 other games for less than either the Xbox or the PS2. I would think that we should see a substantial spike in the sales of Gamecube, because it is such a bargain.

BTW. Why does a Gameboy Advance cost as much as a Gamecube?

Re:Interesting they left out Nintendo

[Anonymous Coward]

"BTW. Why does a Gameboy Advance cost as much as a Gamecube?"

1. Because people pay it.
2. Because handheld portables (tiny parts, lcd screen, li-ion battery) are a LOT more expensive to manufacture than tv consoles (no screen, bigger parts, no battery)

Re:Interesting they left out Nintendo

[jellybean_bunny]

I'll buy into the parts and manufacturing being more expensive. But I would prefer a PDA that has good games, play movies and music, and does the usual PDA stuff. Currently I don't think any PDA does good at playing movies, but the other features are done. I can get one for $199 and write off the business expense. So for the additional $100 bucks, I get a lot more.

Re:Interesting they left out Nintendo

[ivan256]

It's got to be the manufacturing costs. Nintendo like to make a profit on their hardware, and I'd bet that the LCD display on the GBA-SP is far more expensive a part than the optical drive... LiIon Batteries aren't cheap either.

Everyone's same wish list

[superpulpsicle]

1.) doom 3
2.) half life 2
3.) grand turismo 4

People with weak PCs will upgrade.
People with xbox will get a ps2.
People with gcube will get a ps2.
Profit!

Re:Everyone's same wish list

[Anonymous Coward]

You sure you want to speak for everybody?

I don't play driving games or FPS. None of those games are on anywhere on my wish list.

Re:Everyone's same wish list

[Oddly_Drac]

I have a PS2 and I'll be getting an Xbox.

What did that do to your prediction?

Re:Everyone's same wish list

[Squidgee]

I'm getting an XBOX when I own a GC.

I speet on Sony! I just wanna play good multilayer.

no

[mrpuffypants]

"November's big loser was Take Two Interactive, whose sales plummeted 47 percent.

This season's big loser is Valve, Sierra, et. al. for the snafu over Half-Life 2. They would be fucking ROLLING in cash if it'd come out in time.

Not sure about that

[orthancstone]

Doom 3 - I want proof of the game actually being engaging rather than just being a display of a nice engine.
HL 2 - Way they are going, it'll be out for Christmas of next year :D. Oh well, HL 2 will be a more tempting when the mods start coming out for it. Sure, the game will probably be nice but the original hasn't lasted this long on the shelves because of the story and game itself.
GT4 - Sorry, looking forward to Rallisport 2 myself. Comes out sooner, looks great, and will have online capabilities (not that GT4 won't if I remember correctly...just Rallisport will rock online w00t :D). You PS2 people can wait for a long time all you like...I'd rather game now. :)

PC upgrade - Don't I wish :/. What kind of graphics card are you replacing this holiday? Mind if I take it? ;)
Xbox & GC owners will buy a PS2 - Not likely. I own both and can barely split my time efficiently b/w them and my PC. PS2 offers me nothing but a chance to waste my money. :p

Well this was certainly a bit of a silly post...

Wow..so Nintendo doesnt enter the mix?

[Anonymous Coward]

The mainstream media in America is so blind. Nintendo took 53% market share on video games in the hardware side of things and had the single highest selling platform specific title out but thats not enough for CNN money to take notice? What a joke guess its GTA remixes and Medal of Honor for life if you are an American gamers.

Re:Wow..so Nintendo doesnt enter the mix?

[Lemental]

No, because thier software sales are sluggish. There isnt a single title I can think of in the store I work at where a nintendo title outsold and Xbox/PS2 title that spanned all three platforms. I know GTA doesnt count, but, even MK:DDash didnt outsell the exclusive titles for the Xbox and PS2. There were a lot (5-7) instances of people trading in their old gamecubes and rebuying them. Yes the Gamecube sold well in our store, but, it wasnt because of new customers. It was because of the bundle.

Re:Wow..so Nintendo doesnt enter the mix?

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the NPD console game sales chart for November, MK:DD was the number one selling title.

You can't base numbers on one stores sales.

Re:Wow..so Nintendo doesnt enter the mix?

[Anonymous Coward]

To add to your point about basing numbers on incomplete data, it should be noted that Wal-Mart - Nintendo's largest retail partner - is not a company whose sales are tracked by NPD. So whenever NPD reports Nintendo hardware or software sales, they tend to skew somewhat lower than actual numbers. Nintendo software preorders always go quickly at Wal-Mart. It's pretty much GameCube country.

So if even they report that MKDD was the top seller in November, it HAS to be true.

Penny-Arcade, anyone?

[fuzzdawg]

Heh, probably has something to do with penny-arcade. ;)