All-stars competition?

[SmashChu]

That means it just isn't hardcore exclusive, which was the point.

Also, I think 64 sold the least by far. Melee probably sold less because unlike the Wii, few people bought Gamecubes. The ratio of Gamecube owners that owned Melee was significantly higher than that of Wii owners who owned Brawl.

Game sales have little to do with the console they are on (but it helps). Games drive the sales of the console as we buy consoles for games.

1/3 of GCN players had Melee, 1/10 of Wii owners had Brawl.

You can't take the sales of game and divide it by the sale of the system. The business doesn't work like that.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Game sales have little to do with the console they are on (but it helps). Games drive the sales of the console as we buy consoles for games.

Well, sort of, PS2 and Xbox sold a lot because of online capabilities and the ability to play DVDs, the Gamecube itself was by far the weakest link in everything, which only aided in its failure.

If people don't have the console, they aren't going to get the games.

You can't take the sales of game and divide it by the sale of the system. The business doesn't work like that.

??? I just gave you a ratio of smash owners to its respective system owners. According to the ratios, Melee more than likely DID sell the bulk of Gamecubes, I mean, it came out two weeks after launch even. The Wii was already a success at the time of Brawl's hyped release, it sold the most, but not a lot of the people that owned a Wii picked it up.

You can't rely on people buying an entire system for your game.

 

[Oasis_S]

I think oasis was joking.

Yes.

Remember how everyone would jump on you for telling how Smash IS, and when Kuma proposed ideas for how Smash COULD BE, everyone backed away from him?

 

[---]

Remember how everyone would jump on you for telling how Smash IS, and when Kuma proposed ideas for how Smash COULD BE, everyone backed away from him?

Things certainly have changed since then. Good to see SheriffChu is still rounding up those pesky competitive minded varmits. lol

And yet I still can't help but wonder what people are actually expecting in comparison to what they want...


Back on topic, many have said that since Snake is looking to be in All Stars, he therefore won't be in Smash (for whatever legal reasons). But with Smash 4 coming out WAY after All Stars is released wouldn't it be true that lending Snake to Sony wouldn't conflict with lending Snake to Nintendo (assuming that there would be a conflict to begin with)? The games aren't in DIRECT competition with each other anyway.

 

[El Duderino]

Smash was ALWAYS suppose to be easier...Due note that Melee didn't become competitive until late in it's life. Competition really took off around 2004. There was also a large amount of backlash to competitive Smash 9and still is). It's a case of not having your cake and eating it too.

Smash, as a non-exclusive hardcore figther ≠ excluding the hardcore. It is a fighting game that's easy to pick up and start having fun with at any skill level. That does not mean there was no incentive to develop skills giving a compeditive edge. Case in point.

When the scene took off is largely irrelevant considering what Melee did to expand the engine. It was an equally good casual and competitive game. Arguing over which it was made for is largely irrelevant as the improvements go both ways.

But if you want to talk about having your cake and eating it too, Brawl was after something far more difficult than the casual and core, the non-gamer. At least with core and casual you have a fair amount of overlap with what gamers consider improvements. That all goes out the window for accessibility when you bring non-gamer into the picture. Ultimately I don't think the approach benefited anyone, as both camps have problems with Brawl as a result and it's still too damn complicated of a game for my grandma.

 

[Johnknight1]

Basketball is more watched than played, is as most sports.

I've played more hours of basketball than watched, and I was never that good (aside from being 6 feet tall by age 14). And even if sports like basketball are watched more than played, surely everyone at least knows how to "shoot" a basketball or how to "dribble" a basketball, and could do it without any help.

In the world of videogames, making a competitive minded game tends to lead to bad sales.

"Competitive minded" as in only competitive minded (which smash has never been), yes; you are generally right, with a few exceptions (arcade games, Street Fighter, etc).
Making a game with "competitive minded" elements or games that are competitive, no, you are wrong. See: Nearly every shooter (specifically FPS'), puzzle, racing, sports, and fighting game ever (smash included), Mario, Donkey Kong Country, Metroid, loads of RPGs and action RPGs, etc. Basically, every game everyone buys.

Even Melee had some drop as it's the worst selling game of the 3.

Melee more than doubled Smash 64's sales. 7 million+ copies > between 3-4 million. That is despite the fact that the GameCube sold about 40 million less consoles than the N64.

Those that owned a GCN: 21.74 Bought Melee: 7 Wii owners: 89.36 Brawl owners: 9.48.

1/3 of GCN players had Melee, 1/10 of Wii owners had Brawl.

Game sales have little to do with the console they are on (but it helps). Games drive the sales of the console as we buy consoles for games.

Not in the case of the Wii. Most non-gamers and super casual gamers bought the console, especially since Wii Sports was packaged in with the console. They bought the game because it had "brand new motion controls," offered to help them exercise easy, and offered easy (and cheap) fun. The GameCube was more expensive than the PS2 and Xbox at various times with a smaller library of not just good games, but games in general; specifically 3rd party games, FPS multiplayer games, Grand Theft Auto, and online games.

You can't take the sales of game and divide it by the sale of the system. The business doesn't work like that.

Yeah, you are right, but it does make it easier to see why Brawl sold 3 million units more than Melee, since the Wii sold more than 4 times more consoles than the GameCube.

 

[SmashChu]

Well, sort of, PS2 and Xbox sold a lot because of online capabilities and the ability to play DVDs, the Gamecube itself was by far the weakest link in everything, which only aided in its failure.

That's not how it happened at all. In fact, the XBox only sold a small amount more than the Gamecube (no more than 5 million more). The PS2 did well because it launched first and had all the games (which is why Nintendo was more concerned about price, launching and first rather than a DVD player with the Wii). The XBox didn't do so hot, but what pushed it was Halo. The reason the sales of the console aren't important is because people buy consoles to get the games. Games drive hardware. That's also why this statement is wrong....

If people don't have the console, they aren't going to get the games.

Since they buy the console to get games, it's the sales of individual games that matter and that drives the console forward.

??? I just gave you a ratio of smash owners to its respective system owners. According to the ratios, Melee more than likely DID sell the bulk of Gamecubes, I mean, it came out two weeks after launch even. The Wii was already a success at the time of Brawl's hyped release, it sold the most, but not a lot of the people that owned a Wii picked it up.

It's a good time to say this because I don't think you understand the business of videogames. John said about the same thing.

The reason that Brawl is 1/10th of Wii sales and Melee is 1/4th has nothing to do with the systems. What happned is that more people bought the Wii for other games. The Wii had a lot of big hits including NSMBW, Wii Sports and Wii Fit, Mario Kart, and even Just Dance, Donkey Kong and Twilight Princess. Again, because games drive hardware sales, the lower ratio for Brawl is because more people bought the Wii for other games.

If anything, Brawl did better because more people played Brawl. It acquired more fans with the release of Brawl. Melee actually lost fans in Japan.

Yes.

Remember how everyone would jump on you for telling how Smash IS, and when Kuma proposed ideas for how Smash COULD BE, everyone backed away from him?

Yeah, that was hilarious. Sheriffchu always gets his man.

Smash, as a non-exclusive hardcore figther ≠ excluding the hardcore. It is a fighting game that's easy to pick up and start having fun with at any skill level. That does not mean there was no incentive to develop skills giving a compeditive edge. Case in point.

When the scene took off is largely irrelevant considering what Melee did to expand the engine. It was an equally good casual and competitive game. Arguing over which it was made for is largely irrelevant as the improvements go both ways.

First, I'm not going to bother with the last paragraph of your post as you had three unclear words (or buzzwords).

Fact of the matter is, the focus of Smash is on accessibility. The designer of the game himself said Melee's direction was a mistake. Yes, it is still easier to get into Melee than most fighting games. But you forget that Brawl took the direction of more accessible and found even greater sales. Melee actually sold the worst in Japan.

Also, 64 and Melee has L-Canceling, but it was never a big driver of the competitive aspects. Wavedashing drove competitive Smash more. It was also hated and removed which should tell you where Smash's allegiance is.

The thing you don't understand (and why you can't have cake and eat it) is this: When games try to become more competitive, they drive away the non-competitive players. It happens with every game. It's happening with Starcrat 2 now. What happens is the developers make or keep functions in the game that increase the skill ceiling. Most gamers don't want to invest more time into the game and it becomes less about simple fun. They leave, and all that is left is a small, dying fanbase. Street Fighter went dark for 10 years before Street Fighter 4. To have it make more sense, here is how it works.

1. Developer makes a game. It's not made for any one group and the developer really wants a lot of people to play it
2. Game becomes very popular
3. Some players make torunaments because they like the game. A scene starts
4. Developer panders to them. They make the game more difficult because that is what the scene wants (although they wont aalways say it as such. The people advocating more competitive Smash are advocating this. Also why they exclusivly hate Brawl when no one else does).
5. Fringe players, those that are devoted to the game, or weaker players leave as the game has become to hard for them.
6. Only the scene is left. No new blood enters and old players leave. This cause a decay in sales
7. The game becomes a niche

 

[lordvaati]

The SUPERBOT EVO Panel.

the super system looks a lot less overpowered now.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

That's not what happened at all, what do you mean? The Playstation 2 sales were largely from people in Japan buying it as a cheap DVD player. The Gamecube had some good games just like the other two, but as a console, it was awful.

Your argument was that Melee sold less because it was aimed at being more competitive. Now you're saying it sold badly because no one cared about what the Gamecube had, whereas the Wii had better games. While I must disagree with both views, I must point out the shift in what you are saying. John actually aptly puts it, the Wii, while people hate on it (and a good portion of the time for good reason), there is still way more to it than the Gamecube, which was just a weak box for gaming. Gaming being a bigger thing nowadays than it was then also adds to it.

 

[Oasis_S]

Yeah, that was hilarious. Sheriffchu always gets his man.

Weird thing is, I used to agree with a lot of what he said. But then he kept losing a bunch of arguments to you, because most things you said made real sense. Like, big picture sense. Not sure what you'd call it.

Just never mention Twilight again.


Reminds me of an article I read somewhere a long time back about a game that tried to become a "competitive Mario Kart." I actually saw a friend of mine play it before reading that. It was funny, because the article opened with how Mario Kart is always thought of as a game you can play with friends to have a good time no matter what. And the game, whose title I can't remember, advertised itself as "we're not like that." As if to say "This game is not FUN."

 

[SmashChu]

That's not what happened at all, what do you mean? The Playstation 2 sales were largely from people in Japan buying it as a cheap DVD player. The Gamecube had some good games just like the other two, but as a console, it was awful.

PS2 being a DVD player would not have helped it for long. The PS3 was a cheap Blu Ray player and it didn't help it. Games are what count and the PS2 had most of them. Same reason the PS1 did well.

Your argument was that Melee sold less because it was aimed at being more competitive. Now you're saying it sold badly because no one cared about what the Gamecube had, whereas the Wii had better games. While I must disagree with both views, I must point out the shift in what you are saying. John actually aptly puts it, the Wii, while people hate on it (and a good portion of the time for good reason), there is still way more to it than the Gamecube, which was just a weak box for gaming. Gaming being a bigger thing nowadays than it was then also adds to it.

You didn't understand what I was saying.

Melee sold less in Japan, which is an indicator. It means there was some problem, and Sakurai notes he was going in the wrong direction.
Second, the reason the ratios you made don't matter is because console hardware sales are links to the games. Wii sold more because of it's games. That's why I ignore the Gamecube and Wii's sales numbers and look at the series sales numbers.

Weird thing is, I used to agree with a lot of what he said. But then he kept losing a bunch of arguments to you, because most things you said made real sense. Like, big picture sense. Not sure what you'd call it.

Just never mention Twilight again.


Reminds me of an article I read somewhere a long time back about a game that tried to become a "competitive Mario Kart." I actually saw a friend of mine play it before reading that. It was funny, because the article opened with how Mario Kart is always thought of as a game you can play with friends to have a good time no matter what. And the game, whose title I can't remember, advertised itself as "we're not like that." As if to say "This game is not FUN."

Good to know I was doing better in those debates than it seemed Also,did I say Twilight? I meant Twilight Princess. Fewer romantic vampires in the later.

Also, I always feel these competitive games aren't fun. Most of the time when people make a "Balanced Mario Kart" it doesn't feel fun. No surprise you can't remember its title.

 

[Big-Cat]

Things certainly have changed since then. Good to see SheriffChu is still rounding up those pesky competitive minded varmits. lol

He hasn't caught this panda yet and he ain't gonna.

This whole anti-competitive mentality has never made sense to me. I understand that we don't like the idea of someone who's never played the game get bodied by someone who plays the game a lot, but why is it that we only apply this to videogames? I never hear this kind of talk with games like checkers or basketball. Let me guess. It's the preconceived notion that videogames don't require strategy beyond bosses and that it should be easier to get into and be good at it because it doesn't involve physical development in getting better.

 

[Johnknight1]

LOL at the logic that people didn't buy the Wii or PS2 for technology. My dad bought a PS3 as a DVD player, and bought a ton of DVD movies. Then my sister, my brothers, and I bought a ton of games for it, because the PS2 had excellent 1st, 2nd, and 3rd party titles from the get go (Jak & Daxter, GTA, MGS, various sports games, etc).

With the Wii, people bought it because they thought it was something totally new, and you could do fun stuff like virtually bowl.

The GameCube, on the other hand, had few exclusive 3rd party titles and fewer of these that were of good quality, A lot of the GameCube's best games were regional releases, many 3rd party titles on the PS2 and Xbox didn't come to the GameCube, the 1st/2nd party titles were basically all sequels of N64 games that weren't as well received as their predecessor titles (see: Super Mario, Mario Kart, Mario Sports titles, Donkey Kong, Zelda, Star Fox, and Pokémon), and the console had no online. The only titles there were "better" were the exclusive titles, new IPs (Eternal Darkness, Animal Crossing, Pikmin), an actual release of a new Metroid (in Prime 1 and 2, which were fantastic), and the saving grace of the GameCube (that in the fans' eyes topped its' predecessor), MELEEEEEE!!!

Statistics prove this. The PS2 has sold 154 million+ consoles, the Wii has sold 96 million+ consoles, and the GameCube sold 21 million+ consoles. Oh, and might I add that the GameCube was much more expensive than the PS2 was for an extended period. And the GameCube was initially fairly expensive (I got mine for $350 in 2001) compared to the Wii (at $250, which got cheaper once readily available).

Other than Melee and Metroid Prime/Pikmin 1 and 2, the GameCube was seen as mostly a throwaway console by most dedicated gamers, non-gamers, casual gamers, and even Nintendo fan(boys).

 

[Big-Cat]

PS2 being a DVD player would not have helped it for long. The PS3 was a cheap Blu Ray player and it didn't help it. Games are what count and the PS2 had most of them. Same reason the PS1 did well.

While this is definitely true, it's likely that the public were really put off by the PS3's initially high price. The PS2 was the cheapest DVD player for quite some time, and the PS3 might have been the cheapest Blu-Ray player, but people were not so ready to transition to Blu-Ray like people were for the DVD. The fact that we still have the DVD option should say something about that.

Melee sold less in Japan, which is an indicator. It means there was some problem, and Sakurai notes he was going in the wrong direction.

Yet if Brawl sold more than Melee in Japan, why is Sakurai saying Smash 4 will be taking the series in a new direction?

Also, I always feel these competitive games aren't fun. Most of the time when people make a "Balanced Mario Kart" it doesn't feel fun. No surprise you can't remember its title.

So why is an imbalanced game more fun than a balanced one? Personally, I found Snowboard Kids to be a better game AND I found it to be more balanced in terms of mechanics (even if Shinobin was broken) compared to Mario Kart which has for some reason never sought to include an itemless method of defending against items.

 

[Oasis_S]

Good to know I was doing better in those debates than it seemed Also,did I say Twilight? I meant Twilight Princess. Fewer romantic vampires in the later.

Oh, it was something you brought up some time ago in another argument.


@Kuma: SHUT UP N00B. In the original and 64 (I think), you were able to jump over items if you were *gasp* skilled enough. Can you guess why they removed that capability.

 

[Big-Cat]

Oh boohoo, I'm being beaten by someone better than me. Nintendo, please make it so they can't be better than me instead of improving myself!

 

[Oasis_S]

It's hilarious how we both think to ourselves "You just don't get it!"

 

[Big-Cat]

It's hilarious how we both think to ourselves "You just don't get it!"

Get it
Get it
Get it
You just don't get it!
Get it
Get it
Get it

Stupid mother****er
You stupid mother****er
You stupid mother****...er

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I'm no pro or avid Mario Kart player, but when I play, it seems it is all about having a lock on second place, then using an item at the last second to skip past them.

Sometimes not even that, if a blue shell comes at an opportune moment, and we all know half the time that someone is going to have a blue shell.

In other words, yes, it is a pretty boring game unless you take it in small amounts. Competitive games are the only long lasting ones, and thus funner from having more fun.

 

[Oasis_S]

Get it
Get it
Get it
You just don't get it!
Get it
Get it
Get it

Stupid mother****er
You stupid mother****er
You stupid mother****...er

That sounds like a Nicki Minaj song.

 

[Big-Cat]

Mindless Self Indulgence

 

[Oasis_S]

Oh yeah, that Urine guy. I prefer **** myself, you know.

 

[Johnknight1]

At times like these, I wish Dylan_Tnga would show up to rage on those without technical knowledge.

That or NES N00b to make some joke calling everyone scrubs.

Edit: @ Holder
I prefer games that aren't totally random and require no skill.

Thus, Monopoly (via me making corrupt a** deals I eventually make more and more in my favor) > Shoots and Ladders.

Oh, and Super Smash Bros. MELEE > Cartoon Network Punch.

 

[---]

He hasn't caught this panda yet and he ain't gonna.

Can't arrest a panda. lol

This whole anti-competitive mentality has never made sense to me. I understand that we don't like the idea of someone who's never played the game get bodied by someone who plays the game a lot, but why is it that we only apply this to videogames? I never hear this kind of talk with games like checkers or basketball. Let me guess. It's the preconceived notion that videogames don't require strategy beyond bosses and that it should be easier to get into and be good at it because it doesn't involve physical development in getting better.

That was mostly myself just gettng carried away with the whole Sheriff bit, it's not my true opinion on the matter which would be complicated to get into.

Pretty sure that after trying Melee and Brawl, Sakurai will find a balance between the two with Smash 4. Melee was too difficult for most people, and Brawl "tripped" up with trying to force a balance between skill levels. With NB under Sakurai's command, I'm very sure that a balance point will finally be met (and have better online).

 

[SmashChu]

Not going to go though everything. Kind of tired. Sorry.

Yet if Brawl sold more than Melee in Japan, why is Sakurai saying Smash 4 will be taking the series in a new direction?

I actually wrote a huge post on that. HERE

It's not because of gameplay why it's happening. It's happening because 1)Smash can not rely on adding characters alone. There aren't enough to go around and every game adds 13-15 of them. 2)The content in the games warrants 2. The post address that.

So why is an imbalanced game more fun than a balanced one? Personally, I found Snowboard Kids to be a better game AND I found it to be more balanced in terms of mechanics (even if Shinobin was broken) compared to Mario Kart which has for some reason never sought to include an itemless method of defending against items.

The games I mention aren't fun because, in trying to make a "balanced," game, they take out the very aspects that made the game fun. Mario Kart is a great example. Other games say "The blue shell is broken. No more." In the end, they make a very bland game. Sonic Racing was a good example of that.

That was mostly myself just gettng carried away with the whole Sheriff bit, it's not my true opinion on the matter which would be complicated to get into.

Aww shucks.........

Other half of the post is true. Sakurai does listen to complaints and takes them into account. Fox was nerfed in Brawl.

 

[Big-Cat]

A balanced game doesn't have to be boring. If you take out items in Mario Kart and it becomes boring, that's a testament to how dependent the game is on items. There's not much else for it to fall back on unlike Smash Bros.

You can a balanced game with everyone having really good options. It's the idea that if everyone is super, no one is.

 

[lordvaati]

I believe Holder Put it best:

Holy crap this is not even close to the topic.

so back on topic.......here is the entire Superbot Panel. again.

EDIT:better quality, but is missing parts.

 

[---]

Aww shucks.........

Don't worry, you're still a sheriff, I was refering to that I haven't given my own opinion on casuel vs competitive yet.

 

[El Duderino]

Melee sold less in Japan, which is an indicator. It means there was some problem, and Sakurai notes he was going in the wrong direction.

Suggesting Melee sold less due to competitive leanings would be a false conclusion. As you mentioned, competitive Melee took years to really take off and therefore had little influence over Melee's sales peak. Also Melee is not astronomically more complex than SSB64 when played as a party game, and at that, much of what Melee added is also in Brawl. It makes the whole "more complex = less sales" argument here completely unfounded as Brawl and Melee outsold SSB64.

Besides, Brawl sold better as should be expected with the inclusion of Sonic and lapsed nintendo fans picking up Wiis. Still, it's a shadow of Mario Kart Wii's sales figures despite Smash outselling the kart racer the past. Brawl either didn't go far enough, or more realistically Smash is just not a good series to target the non-gamer or extremely casual market with.


I think Superbot realizes that to maximize profitability for PlayStation All-Stars in today's world, it actually makes a lot of sense to build a game also for the competitive crowd. After all, the more dedicated the fan base, the longer they can maintain consistent DLC sales. Don't know how successful they will be at it, but on paper it's smart for business.

 

[Renji64]

The Only Game Playstation all stars is competing with is Tmnt smash up the gameplay is horrible to me it doesn't even make me want to try a demo of it.

 

[lordvaati]

Combo video from EVO.

 

[shinhed-echi]

The Only Game Playstation all stars is competing with is Tmnt smash up the gameplay is horrible to me it doesn't even make me want to try a demo of it.

I know I might be stepping into dangerous territory here, but I found TMNT: Smash Up to be actually good.

It has its obvious flaws, but as someone who's played a lot of Smash Bros clones, TMNT:SU feels really good.

There's a nice combo system, there's actual WEIGHT to character moves (compared to other smash CLONEs). And stuff like wall-dives, and a lot more focus on wall-clinging and climbing that adds an extra layer of depth where missing. I'm a TMNT fan to death, and I found this game to be better than I expected.. Feels like a middleground between Smash Bros and Street Fighter (minus the projectile spam).


The obvious flaws I was talking about are, for starters, the character roster.
The horrificly misleading marketing campaign comes second, and the lack of color schemes/alt costumes when they had a LOT of source material to draw from.


Allstars Battle Royale doesn't look that entertaining for the sole fact that, I repeat, you can't KO opponents in the regular fashion... Relying only on SUPERS will kill this game, heed my warning.

 

[lordvaati]

the super system doesn't really seem that complicated to me. I just see it as Smash's battle system in reverse-in Smash, you build up your opponent's percent to the point where you can send them flying off the stage,and they use all their tools to stay on. in PAS, you build up your own meter to when you can use a finishing blow on the opponent, and they use all of their tools to evade and counter.

 

[Big-Cat]

I gotta say, even though I don't have a PS3, this game is looking like it has potential. I'd be amazed if Nintendo ever made a combo video.

And lordvaati explained it well. It's replacing ring out KOs with supers that would've done the same thing in Smash.

 

[SmashChu]

Suggesting Melee sold less due to competitive leanings would be a false conclusion. As you mentioned, competitive Melee took years to really take off and therefore had little influence over Melee's sales peak. Also Melee is not astronomically more complex than SSB64 when played as a party game, and at that, much of what Melee added is also in Brawl. It makes the whole "more complex = less sales" argument here completely unfounded as Brawl and Melee outsold SSB64.

From the mouth of the games designer.

"I had created Smash Bros. to be my response to how hardcore-exclusive the fighting game genre had become over the years," Sakurai said. "But why did I target it so squarely toward people well-versed in videogames, then? That's why I tried to aim for more of a happy medium with Brawl's play balance. There are three Smash Bros. games out now, but even if I ever had a chance at another one, I doubt we'll ever see one that's as geared toward hardcore gamers as Melee was."

Fact was, Melee got harder. That is the reason for the lower sales.

The thing to note with this is that Melee's Japan sales are an indicator. It first shows that there may not be that "happy medium" that people talk about. It also shows that that direction could be trouble. In Japan's sales decreased, what's to say that it couldn't happen to the EU and US sales with the next game. Also, Brawl was the best selling game in all regions and went with a more assailable approach.

Besides, Brawl sold better as should be expected with the inclusion of Sonic and lapsed nintendo fans picking up Wiis. Still, it's a shadow of Mario Kart Wii's sales figures despite Smash outselling the kart racer the past. Brawl either didn't go far enough, or more realistically Smash is just not a good series to target the non-gamer or extremely casual market with.

That's not how the market works at all. The market works in that games drive themselves. Brawl sold well becaue it was a good game. Same for Mario Kart. There is really nothing special to it. The fact that it sold 10.7 million means it did a damn good job. Most games will never get close to that.

I think Superbot realizes that to maximize profitability for PlayStation All-Stars in today's world, it actually makes a lot of sense to build a game also for the competitive crowd. After all, the more dedicated the fan base, the longer they can maintain consistent DLC sales. Don't know how successful they will be at it, but on paper it's smart for business.

Most sales of videos games come from box sales. DLC has yet to be a viable source of revenue (you can ask Capcom all about it). Also, games keep trying to be competitive and fail. It hasn't worked for most fighting games. It isn't working for Starcraft. It wont work here.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I can't agree with you still, Smashchu. There are too many other variables that seem to have more of a basis than saying it simply did worse because it was targeted towards the competitive. It is especially apparent that when you address Duderino's counter claim, you use a quote of Sakurai questioning why he made it so hard because he wanted to make the game to be a "response to how hardcore-exclusive the fighting game genre had become over the years", and then say that is why it sold less. The premise and the conclusion don't have anything to do with eachother.

There were a lot more Wii fans and owners, video game fans and owners, and Smash fans and owners in the days of Brawl. The market was bigger and thus it sold much more.

 

[Oasis_S]

I wonder how Melee would have done if it wasn't essentially a launch title.

Not that there weren't a couple good launch titles... buuut...

 

[El Duderino]

"But why did I target it so squarely toward people well-versed in videogames, then?... Fact was, Melee got harder. That is the reason for the lower sales. "

So let me get this straight, you are taking Sakurai's reflections on the design of the game, not sales, and are trying to use it as evidence in a seperate discussion? It's not only out of context, but even if he does think the same about sales, it's just a theory, not a fact. Embellishing the difficulty of Melee is not doing you any favors either considering worldwide it outsold Smash 64, the least complex and least competitive game in the series.

The thing to note with this is that Melee's Japan sales are an indicator. It first shows that there may not be that "happy medium" that people talk about. It also shows that that direction could be trouble...That's not how the market works at all. The market works in that games drive themselves.

Melee was also the first Japanese gcn game to sell a million copies as well as the fastest selling gcn game when it released. What you are claiming contradicts how well it actually did sell during its peak selling period. But being realistic here, not all game sales come from consumers willing to buy consoles for it, especially after those first few key months. Suggesting the cube's poor performance in Japan had nothing to do with Melee selling less would be ignoring a whole sector of the consumer market.

DLC has yet to be a viable source of revenue (you can ask Capcom all about it). Also, games keep trying to be competitive and fail. It hasn't worked for most fighting games. It isn't working for Starcraft. It wont work here.

This is all just pure nonsense. Plenty of game studios make money off DLC, it's absolutely a viable revenue source for already successful games. Most fighting games are competitive in design and a lot of them do sell well. And holy crap, the first Startcraft was an incredibly deep, highly competitive game and managed to sell a **** ton. If you are going to push a broken argument, at least try using examples that support it.

 

[Wario Bros.]

LOL! This guy wants Mario to join their fray.

...

That's all I have to say.

 

[soviet prince]

LOL! This guy wants Mario to join their fray.

...

That's all I have to say.

he was joking, the title was very misleading since I dont think there even dev