Why is it only Nintendo's new IPs that "don't count"?

[Hawki]

Sunk cost fallacy, if I recall correctly.

It wasn't sunk cost fallacy. It's similar, but SCF refers to a situation where what you've bought/produced is a failure, but sink more cash into it to justify your initial investment. The term used didn't refer to sunk cost as a form of regret, but rather emotional attachment to something that to you, is a good investment, but are still obliged to defend it against others.

Arms took 18 months to sell that 2million copies. Meanwhile Breath of the Wild sold 18 million copies.To Nintendo, that makes ARMS a waste of time,

Doesn't that depend on how much money was sunk into the development of the game though? ARMS sold less, but I bet it was cheaper to make.

 

[themistermanguy]

Doesn't that depend on how much money was sunk into the development of the game though? ARMS sold less, but I bet it was cheaper to make.

That too. A game's success depends on how many copies can break even on development costs, and development costs can wildly vary from game to game. ARMS wasn't a massive open world epic like BotW was, so it likely needed less sales to recoup the budget.

 

[SupahEwok]

That too. A game's success depends on how many copies can break even on development costs, and development costs can wildly vary from game to game. ARMS wasn't a massive open world epic like BotW was, so it likely needed less sales to recoup the budget.

It also oversimplifies audience purchase habits. It is unlikely that every single person who bought a copy of Zelda bought a copy of ARMS, and vice versa. Different genres, different audiences (that nevertheless certainly have some degree of overlap). Ninty made Zelda and sold a bajillion copies, they made ARMs which sold a majillion copies. These products aren't competing for sales. And Ninty producing only Zelda to chase the mega-hits results in franchise fatigue (why hello, Call of Duty). Ninty plans for long term success, not pumping and dumping an IP for maximum short-term gains like EA. Mario has been around for 40 years, he's likely to still be selling big bucks for another 20. Where's Isaac from Dead Space gonna be? Or Mass Effect? Or any other EA IP. We all know the answer.

 

[CriticalGaming]

It's funny cause Bloodborne only sold about 2 million copies, pretty much the same as ARMs. And his favourite game of all time, Final Fantasy 7: one 3rd of a remake, didn't even sell much more than that at only 3.5million units

FF7 sold 3.5 million in a WEEK. Arms and Bloodborne have sold 2 million in their LIFETIME. Big difference.

Also the remake isn't my favorite game of all time, but I know you only say shit like that to antagonize people since you have no other way to contribute to any conversation other than to troll.

Such is the behavior one would expect of a Nintendo fan?

 

[themistermanguy]

FF7 sold 3.5 million in a WEEK. Arms and Bloodborne have sold 2 million in their LIFETIME. Big difference.

Okay... But that doesn't make ARMS a failure or anything. Different games have different sales expectations, and not everything is going to be an instant mega-hit. Final Fantasy is a massive brand, so naturally it'd be expected to sell that much, that quickly. ARMS and Bloodborne are New IPs, so expectations are considerably lower sales wise.

 

[Hawki]

It also oversimplifies audience purchase habits. It is unlikely that every single person who bought a copy of Zelda bought a copy of ARMS, and vice versa. Different genres, different audiences (that nevertheless certainly have some degree of overlap). Ninty made Zelda and sold a bajillion copies, they made ARMs which sold a majillion copies. These products aren't competing for sales. And Ninty producing only Zelda to chase the mega-hits results in franchise fatigue (why hello, Call of Duty). Ninty plans for long term success, not pumping and dumping an IP for maximum short-term gains like EA. Mario has been around for 40 years, he's likely to still be selling big bucks for another 20. Where's Isaac from Dead Space gonna be? Or Mass Effect? Or any other EA IP. We all know the answer.

Didn't think I'd play devil's advocate for Activision and EA today, but here goes.

First, CoD might have franchise fatigue, but what has that translated into? Certainly not a drop in sales or brand recognition. However one feels about the franchise, clearly it's working from a financial standpoint, even if it's arguably atrophied from a creative one (a Modern Warfare reboot, followed by what's indicated to be a Black Ops reboot). Also, Mario, he's um...well, he's been in a lot of stuff. Annually.

List of video games featuring Mario - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As for Dead Space and Mass Effect, neither of them were pumped and dumped. Mass Effect did well as a trilogy, and it's only recently that shade came its way from the ME3 ending, and Andromeda. Dead Space did well until Dead Space 3, which was more due to mismanagement of the IP. Neither of these IPs suffered 'franchise fatigue' in the same way that CoD or heck, Mario have experienced. And if we're comparing longevity between these IPs and Mario, that's a rigged game. Mario is very much gameplay-first, so it doesn't need to worry about things like setting, continuity, character development, or anything like that. Dead Space and Mass Effect however, are narrative driven, and most narratives have a natural end point, where to continue after it feels contrived. Even if Dead Space 3 fared better, even if Mass Effect 3 didn't have the ending ghosting it, neither of these IPs could concievably last as long as Mario without experiencing diminishing returns per their narrative. CoD can get around this because like Final Fantasy, it doesn't share one continuous setting, and can be consistently recycled. Mario and even Zelda can get around this because they're gameplay first, with even Zelda having very flexible continuity. Mass Effect and Dead Space? Not so much.

Now, I certainly agree that both ME and DS were mismanaged to some extent, but they're terrible comparisons to Mario. And EA did invest in both settings, and initially, it worked.

 

[CriticalGaming]

Okay... But that doesn't make ARMS a failure or anything. Different games have different sales expectations, and not everything is going to be an instant mega-hit. Final Fantasy is a massive brand, so naturally it'd be expected to sell that much, that quickly. ARMS and Bloodborne are New IPs, so expectations are considerably lower sales wise.

I didn't say it did. But it does make it a failure to Nintendo.

Hell Tomb Raider was considered a failure by Square Enix and that game sold 11 million copies.

While the players may like something, it doesn't mean that the publisher was satisfied with the sales figures.

 

[Gordon_4]

I didn't say it did. But it does make it a failure to Nintendo.

Hell Tomb Raider was considered a failure by Square Enix and that game sold 11 million copies.

While the players may like something, it doesn't mean that the publisher was satisfied with the sales figures.

The advertising and development costs of Tomb Raider would probably have paid for 2 million copies of ARMS. Profit is measured against investment. Once or if we find out how much ARMS cost to develop and advertise we can conjecture more accurately. Assuming of course that as a bundled launch title, ARMS’ wasn’t just developed concurrently with the Switch and its costs absorbed by the overall project.

 

[themistermanguy]

I didn't say it did. But it does make it a failure to Nintendo.

Hell Tomb Raider was considered a failure by Square Enix and that game sold 11 million copies.

While the players may like something, it doesn't mean that the publisher was satisfied with the sales figures.

ARMS was much cheaper to make than Tomb Raider though. Nintendo games usually aren't massive-budget to begin with, so the sales expectations for ARMS, especially with it being a new IP, was much lower than something like Zelda. And Nintendo never stated that ARMS was a failure, nor have they implied anything of such.

 

[Yoshi]

FF7 sold 3.5 million in a WEEK. Arms and Bloodborne have sold 2 million in their LIFETIME. Big difference.

Also the remake isn't my favorite game of all time,

fair enough about FF7.
What about Bloodborne? Why hasn't that been considered a failure when it's only sold about the same in it's lifetime

but I know you only say shit like that to antagonize people since you have no other way to contribute to any conversation other than to troll.

Such is the behavior one would expect of a Nintendo fan?

Thats rich coming from the guy who had a go at me for something i said about xenoblade 2 literally 3 years ago.
In a thread i made about a xenoblade 1 remake, and mentioned nothing about xenoblade 2 in.

Don't be a bloody hypocrite to me about "antagonizing" conversations with you when you do it to me all the time.

 

[Yoshi]

I didn't say it did. But it does make it a failure to Nintendo.

proof?

Hell Tomb Raider was considered a failure by Square Enix and that game sold 11 million copies.

oh right let's compare a new ip on a single platform with a multiplatform, juggernaut franchise that's been around for like 25 years. Cause that's totally fair.

Can't say i expected much though.

 

[CriticalGaming]

What about Bloodborne? Why hasn't that been considered a failure when it's only sold about the same in it's lifetime

It isn't considered a failure because it out performed expectations. Thus why Sony gave it a rerelease in the form of a "greatest hits" version. And it's success is mostly due to the cult following of the Souls series as a whole. Independantly I don't think Bloodborne has been super successful from a business standpoint.

Bloodborne is kind of like the Earthbound of Playstation. Where the fans love the shit out of the game and have been dying for a sequel, but Sony just isn't doing it for whatever reason. Just like Nintendo fans want Nintendo to release Mother 3, or just a new Mother/Earthbound game in general. There is cult success and comercial success and they are often very different things.

proof?

Can't really prove that statement other than Nintendo has a habit of making multiple games in a franchise at a fairly quick pace if they view it as a successful IP. Yet there has been nothing about ARMS since it's release aside from Smash DLC which doesn't count because they throw everything into Smash.

Did Arms even get DLC itself? Extra fighters? Anything? It's one of those games that feels like they just threw it out there and didn't really give a shit about.

Though to be fair, like 1-2-switch, ARMS could have just been a bullshit title they made to show of the motion tech on the Switch and had no intention of making it a marketable IP.

oh right let's compare a new ip on a single platform with a multiplatform, juggernaut franchise that's been around for like 25 years. Cause that's totally fair.

Dude grow up. it wasn't a comment meant to be fair. It was a comment to point out that sales figures alone don't equal success in the eyes of a publisher. It's an extreme example used to prove a point.

 

[Yoshi]

It isn't considered a failure because it out performed expectations. Thus why Sony gave it a rerelease in the form of a "greatest hits" version. And it's success is mostly due to the cult following of the Souls series as a whole. Independantly I don't think Bloodborne has been super successful from a business standpoint.

ARMS also out performed expectations. 2 million units is still alot of copies for any single new IP. either both games are success'es or both are failures end of story

Bloodborne is kind of like the Earthbound of Playstation. Where the fans love the shit out of the game and have been dying for a sequel, but Sony just isn't doing it for whatever reason. Just like Nintendo fans want Nintendo to release Mother 3, or just a new Mother/Earthbound game in general. There is cult success and comercial success and they are often very different things.

whoever said ARMS didn't have a cult following? YOU? someone that doesn't give a shit about Nintendo games in the first place?
there are some pretty hardcore ARMS fans out there that are pretty dedicated to the game and it's still really easy to find a game online for ARMS because of those types of players

Did Arms even get DLC itself? Extra fighters? Anything? It's one of those games that feels like they just threw it out there and didn't really give a shit about.

yes. it got 5 DLC fighters. they were distributed in free DLC updates, like Splatoon DLC is.

 

[Hawki]

ARMS also out performed expectations. 2 million units is still alot of copies for any single new IP. either both games are success'es or both are failures end of story

I don't have a horse in this race, but that's not technically true.

Two games can sell the same amount of copies, but that doesn't mean that both are equally successful from a financial standpoint. I'm pretty sure that Bloodborne would cost more to develop than ARMS, so if they're priced the same, and sell the same no. of copies, then ARMS would be more successful.

 

[CriticalGaming]

whoever said ARMS didn't have a cult following?

Maybe it does.....but just because you can find online games doesn't mean it has a following.

I don't see people ever bring up or talk about ARMS in forums or subreddits that aren't specifically about ARMS.

Meanwhile Bloodborne is brought up in conversations all over the place. Conversations that don't start with reasons to bring up Bloodborne. There is a very very distinct difference there. Though you might not be able to understand that because your love blinds you to the fact that you've been woreshipping mostly poo your whole life.

yes. it got 5 DLC fighters

Ok, cool. I imagine these fighters came out pretty close to the release of the game then? So it got DLC that's good. Does it have tournament play? Seasons? Leagues?

Actually nevermind it doesn't really matter.



Here's the bottom line. Nintendo's IPs tend to exist in a vacuum of Nintendo world. Meanwhile Microsoft and Sony's IP's transend there sphere of influence. Every Sony fan is aware when new Halo and Gears of War shits comes out. Just like Microsoft fans know when new Uncharted, Killzone, and Final Fantasy games come out.

When Nintendo makes a new IP, only Nintendo fans care. When Microsoft and Sony makes a new IP EVERYBODY cares. *drops mic*

 

[Yoshi]

Here's the bottom line. Nintendo's IPs tend to exist in a vacuum of Nintendo world. Meanwhile Microsoft and Sony's IP's transend there sphere of influence. Every Sony fan is aware when new Halo and Gears of War shits comes out. Just like Microsoft fans know when new Uncharted, Killzone, and Final Fantasy games come out.

When Nintendo makes a new IP, only Nintendo fans care. When Microsoft and Sony makes a new IP EVERYBODY cares. *drops mic*

I didn't know that Halo, gears of war, uncharted, killzone and final fantasy were new ips?....

 

[CriticalGaming]

I didn't know that Halo, gears of war, uncharted, killzone and final fantasy were new ips?....

Again you miss the point because you can't see anything past your little bubble.

but if you wanna compare new IP's, we can. I have the power of google on my side.

Horizon Zero Dawn, a new IP released the same year as ARMS, outsold ARMS in the same week......except in that week ARMS was new and HZD had been out for FOUR months and it STILL outsold ARMS. Horizon has gone on to sell 10 MILLION lifetime units.

Sources: Arms debuted at number two on the UK sales charts, behind Horizon Zero Dawn.[48] It was number two in Australia, behind the same game.[49] It sold 100,652 physical copies during its first week of release in Japan, and debuted at number one on the all-format sales charts.[50] By September 30, 2018, the game had sold over 2.1 million copies worldwide.[51] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_(video_game)#Development

Horizon Zero Dawn was the best-selling game during its release week in the UK.[105] It surpassed No Man's Sky as the biggest launch of a new intellectual property on the PlayStation 4 and was the most successful launch of any kind on the platform since Uncharted 4: A Thief's End,[106] as well as Guerrilla Games' biggest debut to date.[107] The game sold close to 117,000 copies in its first week in Japan, becoming the second best-selling game that week.[108] Horizon Zero Dawn was the second most downloaded game on the American PlayStation 4 store for February. Because its launch day occurred on the last day of February, only one day of sales was counted.[109] It was the best-selling game in its week of release in Australia.[110] In March 2017, it was the second best-selling game in the UK and the highest-selling PlayStation 4 game.[111] Horizon Zero Dawn was also the best-selling game on PlayStation Store that month.[112] It was ranked number one in the UK sales chart in April 2017, while hitting eighth place in the Japanese chart.[113] By February 2018, over 7.6 million copies had been sold,[114] increasing to over 10 million a year later, making it one of the best-selling PlayStation 4 games.[115] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_Zero_Dawn

 

[themistermanguy]

Again you miss the point because you can't see anything past your little bubble.

but if you wanna compare new IP's, we can. I have the power of google on my side.

Horizon Zero Dawn, a new IP released the same year as ARMS, outsold ARMS in the same week......except in that week ARMS was new and HZD had been out for FOUR months and it STILL outsold ARMS. Horizon has gone on to sell 10 MILLION lifetime units.

Sources: Arms debuted at number two on the UK sales charts, behind Horizon Zero Dawn.[48] It was number two in Australia, behind the same game.[49] It sold 100,652 physical copies during its first week of release in Japan, and debuted at number one on the all-format sales charts.[50] By September 30, 2018, the game had sold over 2.1 million copies worldwide.[51] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_(video_game)#Development

Horizon Zero Dawn was the best-selling game during its release week in the UK.[105] It surpassed No Man's Sky as the biggest launch of a new intellectual property on the PlayStation 4 and was the most successful launch of any kind on the platform since Uncharted 4: A Thief's End,[106] as well as Guerrilla Games' biggest debut to date.[107] The game sold close to 117,000 copies in its first week in Japan, becoming the second best-selling game that week.[108] Horizon Zero Dawn was the second most downloaded game on the American PlayStation 4 store for February. Because its launch day occurred on the last day of February, only one day of sales was counted.[109] It was the best-selling game in its week of release in Australia.[110] In March 2017, it was the second best-selling game in the UK and the highest-selling PlayStation 4 game.[111] Horizon Zero Dawn was also the best-selling game on PlayStation Store that month.[112] It was ranked number one in the UK sales chart in April 2017, while hitting eighth place in the Japanese chart.[113] By February 2018, over 7.6 million copies had been sold,[114] increasing to over 10 million a year later, making it one of the best-selling PlayStation 4 games.[115] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_Zero_Dawn

What an Open world action game has broader appeal than a 3D arena fighter? Shocker! In all seriousness, you still have to realize that expectations in sales for these two games are vastly different. Horizon was expensive as shit to make compare to ARMS, so obviously, it needs to pull more of its weight.

 

[happyninja42]

Meanwhile Bloodborne is brought up in conversations all over the place. Conversations that don't start with reasons to bring up Bloodborne.

So you're saying they're like the gaming community equivalent of "IS THAT A JOJO REFERENCE!?!" for anime/manga? Where everything orbits back to FromSoftware ?

 

[CriticalGaming]

What an Open world action game has broader appeal than a 3D arena fighter? Shocker! In all seriousness, you still have to realize that expectations in sales for these two games are vastly different. Horizon was expensive as shit to make compare to ARMS, so obviously, it needs to pull more of its weight.

See Nintendo fans have to keep moving the goal post.

Ok you want a fighting game comparison? Does 1.8 million digital copies of Mortal Kombat 11 at LAUNCH count? No of course not because it's not a "new" IP right?

How about an arena shooter? Overwatch was a new IP, oh welp that's 50 million copies so i guess we can't use that because it's from Blizzard and we all know blizzard is much more popular than Nintendo somehow.

Tekken 7 maybe? Let's try that.Oooh nope 7 million and it's part of a franchise so can't do that I guess.

I don't know what else to say, nothing directly compares if you keep shifting the goalpost to whatever fits your narative. You don't wanna see facts fine, then there is no conversation to be had.