Zechs Merquise Posted September 29, 2007 Posted September 29, 2007 I like the way that those who wish to champion the Halo cause in this thread of simply ignoring the figures put forward for both system sales and previous uptake rates of these games. Only time will tell, but I'd really love to revisit this thread later and see how things have panned out.
DCK Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 The XBOX sold 24 million units in it's lifetime. Halo sold 5 million units and Halo 2 sold 6.5 million units. Which shows that between Halo and Halo 2 had an uptake rate of 21% and 27% respectively. This compares to Mario 64 (33% uptake) and Sunshine (25% uptake) and the figures are reasonably similar, albeit slightly higher for Mario. Thus, basing predictions on current worldwide total sales of XBOX 360 and Wii, current rate of sales of XBOX 360 and Wii and previous uptake rate of the last two released games in each series I think based on the data we can all agree that it looks like Mario should take this title. Those are some interesting numbers; I guess I overestimated Halo, I thought the attach rate was over 50% but it's not even close. Putting it this way I'd say Mario Galaxy has quite a good chance to outsell Halo 3 for what it's worth. It would be a very smart move of Nintendo to bundle Wiis with Mario Galaxy. A pack with a Wii, Wii Sports and Mario Galaxy for price of the Wii Sports bundle would have Nintendo conquering the Christmas period.
jammy2211 Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 Those are some interesting numbers; I guess I overestimated Halo, I thought the attach rate was over 50% but it's not even close. Putting it this way I'd say Mario Galaxy has quite a good chance to outsell Halo 3 for what it's worth. It would be a very smart move of Nintendo to bundle Wiis with Mario Galaxy. A pack with a Wii, Wii Sports and Mario Galaxy for price of the Wii Sports bundle would have Nintendo conquering the Christmas period. Shops do these bundles all the time, they're not official ones but they're bound to have one for Christmas. Probably be about £210 for a Wii, Wii Sports, Mario Galaxy and a second rate game like SonicATSR's or something.
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted September 30, 2007 Author Posted September 30, 2007 Hmmm, what do you think are the odds for Nintendo bringing out a new Wii colour for the launch of Galaxy? Lke with what they did with Wind Waker.
jammy2211 Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 Hmmm, what do you think are the odds for Nintendo bringing out a new Wii colour for the launch of Galaxy? Lke with what they did with Wind Waker. I don't think it's very likely, we'd probably know about it by now as it is only about 6 weeks ago. Nintendo are having a hard enough time keeping up with demand, when it's Christmas the last thing they can afford to do is upset their production line by introducing a new coloured model. We'll see new colours in 2008, probably black and pink. I'd guess a price drop would be to follow then too, maybe...
barbapapa Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 After finishing Halo 3's campaign mode I have to say; this discussion basically boils down to: Single Player VS Multi Player. What is played more? :P 'cause Halo 3's single player (or co-op) mode is quite laughable.
mcj metroid Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 I pretty much made every single argument i could in the other thread that was about the exact same thing. I believe mario galaxy will sell better WORLDWIDE. Halo Will sell better only in uk and ireland. That's just what I think but I'm not great at this stuff.
Noodleman Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 After finishing Halo 3's campaign mode I have to say; this discussion basically boils down to: Single Player VS Multi Player.What is played more? :P 'cause Halo 3's single player (or co-op) mode is quite laughable. What difficulty did you play it on, Im guessing normal? And co-op is far from laughable.
mcj metroid Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 what get's me is people who play halo and easy just to clear it faster. Games should last you a while.
Cube Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 and a second rate game like SonicATSR's or something. Sonic and the Secret Rings is hardly second rate...
jammy2211 Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 Sonic and the Secret Rings is hardly second rate... I mean like in price. Games like SonicATSR's / Excite Truck / Red Steel etc are getting quite cheap now at retail, so this sort of game may be thrown in as it costs near nothing to the retailer.
Cube Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 I mean like in price. Games like SonicATSR's / Excite Truck / Red Steel etc are getting quite cheap now at retail, so this sort of game may be thrown in as it costs near nothing to the retailer. Ah. Makes sense. Or perhaps for something like £230/240 for a Wii, Wii Sports, Super Mario Galaxy, Sonic and the Secret Rings and Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games. Would make a rather nice bundle.
barbapapa Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 What difficulty did you play it on, Im guessing normal? And co-op is far from laughable. I'm not talking about the difficulty per sé, just the scale of it. It never impressed me at any point like the first Halo did.
Zechs Merquise Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 I'm going to get bashed for this, but here goes... Halo 3 has been overrated by the gaming press. Yes, I'm sure what there is of it is truly fantastic. I'm sure it looks great, and plays very well. But a single player campaign that lasts between 6 and 7 hours, that is poor. I know people will jump up and down with rage over that comment, the defence being the great multiplayer and online gaming. But hey, I'm a guy that still loves a single player challenge, I love sitting up late besting my scores and perfecting my performance on levels, like I used to with Mario 64 and Goldeneye. I bet the gaming press will be far more critical of Galaxy as they were of Prime 3. Let's all face facts, if Prime 3 was in HD it's average score on Gamerankings would have been 3, 4 or even 5 points higher.
AshMat Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 The point is, jsut because Halo 3's single player is short, doesn't mean that's all, people will be playing the multiplayer for years. Also, Zechs on the last page i pointed out Halo 2's sales because you were just completely missing halo 2 out, and picking halo 1 because sunshine sold more than it. Following the trend halo 3 should sell more than 2 did.
jammy2211 Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 The point is, jsut because Halo 3's single player is short, doesn't mean that's all, people will be playing the multiplayer for years. Also, Zechs on the last page i pointed out Halo 2's sales because you were just completely missing halo 2 out, and picking halo 1 because sunshine sold more than it. Following the trend halo 3 should sell more than 2 did. Following the trend? Of 2 games? I don't think that's a very sensible thing to do. Especially when you consider Halo 2 is in a much better position to sell copies then Halo 3, so really Halo 3 should be compared to Halo in terms of sales-ability. My biggest problem with the gaming press is they seem happy to 'ignore' faults for something like Halo 3 when deciding the final score, whereas Metroid Prime 3 and such are discriminated for lesser reasons. It's sites like Gamespot which seem guilty of this to me.
mcj metroid Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 I'm going to get bashed for this, but here goes... Halo 3 has been overrated by the gaming press. Yes, I'm sure what there is of it is truly fantastic. I'm sure it looks great, and plays very well. But a single player campaign that lasts between 6 and 7 hours, that is poor. I know people will jump up and down with rage over that comment, the defence being the great multiplayer and online gaming. But hey, I'm a guy that still loves a single player challenge, I love sitting up late besting my scores and perfecting my performance on levels, like I used to with Mario 64 and Goldeneye. I bet the gaming press will be far more critical of Galaxy as they were of Prime 3. Let's all face facts, if Prime 3 was in HD it's average score on Gamerankings would have been 3, 4 or even 5 points higher. That does sound pretty poor.. That's a horribly short single player..
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted September 30, 2007 Author Posted September 30, 2007 So how do we know Mario Galaxy is going to last even longer? Fact is, people will probably playing an online game such as Halo far longer than a platformer. I'm still playing PC Command and Conquer TW to this day, far longer than any console Nintendo game at present.
mcj metroid Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 So how do we know Mario Galaxy is going to last even longer? Fact is, people will probably playing an online game such as Halo far longer than a platformer. I'm still playing PC Command and Conquer TW to this day, far longer than any console Nintendo game at present. Cause It will.........This game has to live up to mario 64 which had at least 20 or so hours of gameplay.. 6 hours is embarassing.. The original super mario bros would last you even longer i'd say.
Gizmo Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 To be fair, Bungie skimped on the single player to focus on the multiplayer and community aspects. You can't say Halo 3 is rubbish because the campaign has no longevity when theres that level of online features - the normal online, the video maker, the map editor, the co-op. Maybe if it was something like Bioshock or Metroid that had a 6 hour campaign and nothing else to offer. But Halo 3 was not developed to be a primarily single player game. I think alot of the time single player is the focus and multi is tacked on - it felt the other way around to me with Halo.
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted September 30, 2007 Author Posted September 30, 2007 Cause It will.........This game has to live up to mario 64 which had at least 20 or so hours of gameplay.. 6 hours is embarassing.. The original super mario bros would last you even longer i'd say. You just...Never know. Nintendo has a way of rushing things when it feels it has to.
mcj metroid Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 If this game is less than 6 hours I will shop my balls off and send it to googlevideo so that you will have a larger viewing screen. I'm that sure!
Zechs Merquise Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 Following the trend? Of 2 games? I don't think that's a very sensible thing to do. Especially when you consider Halo 2 is in a much better position to sell copies then Halo 3, so really Halo 3 should be compared to Halo in terms of sales-ability. My biggest problem with the gaming press is they seem happy to 'ignore' faults for something like Halo 3 when deciding the final score, whereas Metroid Prime 3 and such are discriminated for lesser reasons. It's sites like Gamespot which seem guilty of this to me. My point was also on uptake rate, and Halo 2's uptake rate was only 2% higher than Sunshine's and when you take into account the lack of advertising and hype for Sunshine compared to Halo 2 it's pretty remarkable. Also, when Mario launches, it will be the first time for a long while that Mario is launching on a home system that is the biggest selling in the market. If I'm correct the last time that happened was Mario Bros 2 and 3 on the NES! (Super Mario World was launched when the SNES was still behind the Megadrive in worldwide sales) So how do we know Mario Galaxy is going to last even longer? Fact is, people will probably playing an online game such as Halo far longer than a platformer. I'm still playing PC Command and Conquer TW to this day, far longer than any console Nintendo game at present. Oh come off it. We all kow that Galaxy will last a lot longer than 7 hours. We all know that the lifespan of Halo 3 has been criminally overlooked by the gaming press. These are the same people who marked down Prime 3 for silly little things such as, "we knocked it down to a 8.9 because the flies on the swamp stage buzzed like bees and not flies."
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted September 30, 2007 Author Posted September 30, 2007 Oh come off it. We all kow that Galaxy will last a lot longer than 7 hours. We all know that the lifespan of Halo 3 has been criminally overlooked by the gaming press. These are the same people who marked down Prime 3 for silly little things such as, "we knocked it down to a 8.9 because the flies on the swamp stage buzzed like bees and not flies." Wahaha! Tell me that wasn't a real reason? As stated before, Halo's (and other online game's) excessive lifespans lies in its multiplayer appeal. Once you've finished games like Galaxy and Super Paper Mario, after collecting all the no-pointer, time consuming collectables its pretty much the end.
mcj metroid Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 Wahaha! Tell me that wasn't a real reason? As stated before, Halo's (and other online game's) excessive lifespans lies in its multiplayer appeal. Once you've finished games like Galaxy and Super Paper Mario, after collecting all the no-pointer, time consuming collectables its pretty much the end. you could say that for ANY game though. Gta etc. halo isn't really a multiplayer focussed game in all fairness. It didn't start off as one.. if the single player is 6 hours then that's just shit whatever way you look at it.
Recommended Posts