Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Never said it was a victory. Sure, there are parallels to TMNT given the numbers and similar position, but last time I checked Smash is still the game most everyone compares this to.
I don't play sales, I play games, and for my money, PSABR is the closest any game has come to Smash Brothers, while still obviously falling short. Sales matter to companies, they don't matter when it comes to forming an opinion on a piece of entertainment.
My original comment was that TMNT is more competition. Even if Sony Smash over takes it (which is still uncertain), their sales numbers will be comparable. Yeah, Smash is the mold, but the figures are so far away to even discuss it as competition.
Whoa, let's back up here. This is the comment I originally responded to
If we are going to even try and call the game competition, then we need to look at sales numbers and other financial results. In your little world, it may be competition. But when Nintendo executives make business decisions about their series, is Sony Smash gonna have them shaking in their boots? No. Sales are awful and they are right now worse than TMNT and aren't getting better (still in the bottom of the top 100 for week 3). It's clear Nintendo's customers aren't rushing out to buy Sony Smash and there isn't enough money to try and pursue their customers. Is Nintendo going to try and compete? No. They won a long time ago.
Again, I'm just going to quote myself.
The reason I say this is
Then how the hell is it competing?
If it's not sales, then how the hell is it competing? There is no point to this argument because there is no benchmark. You have gone so far as to ignore the obvious benchmark.
Selling like gangbusters is not a requirement to compete; going after a share of the same market, offering an alternative, and/or attempting to make a contending product is. As a game, PSABR happens to be the closest attempt to reach that same game mascot, multiplayer platform-fighter audience. Not only is it the most relevant competition, PSABR is also Smash's biggest rival considering the content, budget, online play/support, and potential to sway some PS3 owners from buying a new Nintendo product for that kind of experience.
My point is still the same, PSABR is a notable competitor by accomplishing things Smash is either behind on or other Smash inspired games have fallen short with. No need to inject more sales talk into the conversation.
You realize everything you mentioned has to do with sales. Heck, you used the word "market share," for pete sake. You basically solidified my argument.
Remember that example with the 300 pound guy and the Olympic runner in a race. If that were to happen in real life, people wouldn't see it as a competition. They'd see it as a joke. You know who's going to win. The runner can jog his way to victory.
Seeing the data, it hasn't accomplished anything. heck, there may not be a sequel with such poor performance.
This is the most sensible thing you've ever said.
First, Smash on the 64 sold over 5 million copies. As a first game, it's doing poorlyI think psa is better than smash is now. Based on actual gameplay. Sales don't really mean anything. That being said, it's a tad silly to compare sales with brawl because at the time Smash already had a dedicated fan base built from two previous games.
That what, PSABR not selling as much as Brawl somehow keeps it from being a competing product? How does me addressing this loony claim solidify your skewed logic? Last time I checked Kindle is still a competitor to the iPad and MacOs is still a competitor to Windows. It's no different here, PSABR is a competitor to Smash.
Great, so now sales numbers not only dictate what is a competitor, they also dictate if a game has accomplished anything. Please continue, I bet next you come up with some zany conclusion about Smash's audience based on PSABR sales... oh wait, you just did.
You do know they are pretty clearly hiring for one, right? Care to explain, under your sales logic, how they are justifying a sequel?
You defined competition as sales using phrases like "market share" and making a competitive product.
Seeing as, when asked what competition is you said "sales," I think it is.
We'll see when it comes out. I'm saying it wont because it doesn't look like it's making money. Then again, this is coming from a company that is expected to go out of business in a few years.
PSABR is selling, you posted numbers didn't you? May not be meeting sales expectations, but it's still technically competing for a share of consumers that enjoy Smash, some of which may not be as tempted to buy a WiiU for that experience now.
Any credibility you may have had on business or competition just flew out the window. Honestly, have you been living under a rock for the past 20 years? There is an unbelievable amount of conflicting interests they compete over, OS related and beyond:
PSABR is worth a lot more to Sony than what these initial numbers pull in. It's essentially in-game advertisement for their other products, a way to gauge consumer intrest in characters and older franchises, and dampen the pull Smash has for some Sony consumers. It's an investment for them that's not paying off immediately, but very well could in the long run.
Currently, the game has sold 0.22 million. While it hasn't released in Japan, I doubt it's going to do well there. With Brawl at 10.7 million, Sony Smash has 2.1% of Brawl's sales. From it's current growth pattern, it will be lucky to break .5 million. Generally, for any big title, 1 million is average. Anything below that is weak. Using VGchartz's Brawl numbers (11.37) the percent would be 1.9%. None of this is very strong. Nintendo would easily hold 95% of the market share. This is pretty close to a Monopoly. 5% is also generous.
I find your comments very funny. You scream "YOU DON'T GET BUSINESS. SEE! SEE!," yet you have no idea how the market works. tisk tisk.
[/COLLAPSE]
Games are meant to sell, not to advertise. There are far better ways to advertise than make a whole new studio and make a full video game. Your basically moving the goal post.
And like I mentioned success, which largely depends on context and your perspective, is not a requirement to compete. Now can you please stop pushing this stupid idea that PSABR cannot be referred to as a competitor? Sales-wise, it's currently not a big competitor, that's all.
Apple is absolutely in the software business, they just tie everything to their hardware. Every mac you buy has the OS/software cost factored in. It's one reason why the price is so inflated for what hardware you are getting. Apple also makes money on the more frequent OS upgrades that cost money. Those can certainly total up with the rate software becomes incomparable with older versions of macOS. Sure, they have a different business model, but a big part of that business still falls into the software category.
The only thing I believe is as a first attempt, SuperBot made a comparable fighter with room to grow. I really could care less how well it sells relative to Smash, and I really don't care about any attempt to guess the reasons, cite the conjecture as evidence, and pretend it's proof of something in a different topic.
Basically, you don't have an argument.
So sales are a metric for success. As I said, the game is selling very poorly, which tends to mean the game is NOT successful. See how easy analysis is.
You basically can't prove it's a success or competition but you keep saying it is. All for the purpose that SSB4 will change because the developers have to worry. Again, Sony Smash actually proved Smash is going the right way while Sony Smash went the wrong way. It says that competitive Smash should not be a focus as a competitive-friendly game couldn't muster enough sales and profit. In the end, the game is a failure and no competition at all. But this argument will continue because you want it to be a success.
Listen to yourself for a minute. Apple is in the software business because they bundle their software with the hardware they sell. But they are selling the hardware. Wouldn't that make them a hardware company?
Translation: "I lost and I'm mad. Sony Smash is great and you're a big poopy head." Your telling me you can't defend your reasoning and resort to very general statements of why it's not a failure. You ignore a measurable metric saying it doesn't matter while at the same time not giving another one. There is no reason for what you say. It's what you want to head. This argument is about hopes and dreams for you, not reality.
His argument is the game is successful and is serious competition for Smash when data proves neither of those. The facts make my argument. Nothing more to it.
Erm, no, you're just kind of pulling that out of thin air. But you're just going to find some way to repeat that "Smash has sold millions, so everything else sucks" anyway, so I guess it doesn't really matter.
Well, let's actually see what he said.
The argument was that Sony Smash is the first competition to smash. Basically, my argument is that it's not successful or competitive and it only shows that what Smash is doing is right and should not change. I like how you didn't care about what I was saying.
Part of this argument was that you never gave a reason for why it was a competitor. When asked, you claimed business elements like market share were (which is what I was saying). The argument started because your observation was flat out wrong. You had no basis for saying that and couldn't defend it.
What I mean is it wont be a competitor until it makes a dent in Smash sales. Heck, 1 million would be enough for that, which is the norm for most big titles. Right now, Sony Smash's sales are 2 percent of Brawl's. I doubt Nintendo would lose a wink of sleep over that.PSA won't be a competitor until after it's outsold brawl? Is that what you mean? That's enough chu, just let yourself lose.
Paragraph #2. Or you could also just look at the game. They are clearly striving to gain some ground on Smash (pick whatever context you like). At the most basic level that is all the act of competing is.
2% is not a dent. That's almost a monopoly.The dent is ridiculously small, but it's there. I for one picked up psa and ever since I've had no desire to play brawl at all.
I addressed that a long time ago. I actually just reposted it.
Let's talk Monopolies, and it will make more sense. A Monopoly doesn't have to be only 1 person in a market (yeah, I know we are talking about a type of game, but just roll with it). A monopoly can exist when one company has so much of the market that they control it. As I've said, Sony Smash is 2% of Brawl's sales. Using the latest VGchartz numbers, Sony Smash only has 1.9 percent of the market. (Calculated as 11.37+.22=11.59 or total market. 0.22/11.59=1.898). This means that, while Sony Smash exist, Smash controls far more of the market. Sony Smash will have little bearing with such a lot percent, so Smash has no real competition and it can do as it pleases (or, at least, keep going as it has). Monopolies exist in that they have all the power. While, yes, the game does exist and it's going for the same kind of game as Smash, it's not competition has it has not way to topple the giant.If I had a ding in my car that took up 2% of the body, I would still call that a dent.
I think I was the dog.I'm always the horse when I play monopoly. Or the shoe.
If we are talking only about the die-hard fans on each side, sure.
Super Smash brothers on the 64 sold 5.5 million and started the series. Smash started as a success where Sony Smash clearly didn't. I don't think there is a lot of room for the series to grow in it's current state. It will have to change it's views. OIne of the biggest changed needs to be shedding off the idea of being competitive-friendly. It will have to be a game where many different kinds of players want to jump in and play. Right now, that is not the case.
Actually, SuperBot has talked a lot about their game and Smash. There is also the image below.
Let's go back to our definition of Monopoly. It doesn't hav to be total control, but significant control where others can not compete in the current market. If you can compete, then you don't have a monopoly. From the data, we can see Smash does have a monopoly. Another way we can see that is that Sony Smash has been framed in the context of Smash. Consider how many times the developers talk about Smash and how many times Nintendo or Sakurai mention Sony Smash. We also have this.
