Gaming Devolved?

Sounds like total sales across all platforms.
Thread title misleading, they're decent games and have good ratings, not AMD's fault not many people bought them.

It's intentionally misleading. The article doesn't mention "Gaming Devolved" at all.

The quality of a game isn't measured in how much it sells, evidenced by the fact that they all got high review scores.

Ignoring digital sales too? What? That's pretty much ALL the copies bundled with AMD graphics cards then isn't it?
 
Ignoring the other topic a moment... many developers/publishers would kill to ship 3.4+m copies of a game in that little time, dunno what their expectations were but if that wasn't good enough for them they really screwed up majorly somewhere.
 
Ignoring the other topic a moment... many developers/publishers would kill to ship 3.4+m copies of a game in that little time, dunno what their expectations were but if that wasn't good enough for them they really screwed up majorly somewhere.

Well if they're not counting digital sales for some bizarre reason, it's no wonder they didn't make the 15 million they wanted.

Had they included digital sales (which surpassed retail box copies last year) they would surely have 15 million+.

What it really seems like is that Square-Enix have strangely unrealistic expectations.
 
Sales targets were likely console targets which mean more to guys as people want to have a sellable franchise on consoles. If Sleeping Dogs sold say 5mil copies on consoles, they know they can dump x number of millions into Sleeping Dogs 2, now they are thinking, hmmm, does 2mil mean a growing franchise or a dying one, they either put more money into a new game and find it flops or put less money into a sequel and probably find it flops as most players view it as a cash in on the fans who enjoyed the first.

People don't want to make ONE great game, then go make another great game, they want to make COD< then milk it for all its worth and get rich, and shareholders/owners/daft people blame the CEO when a game just sells "well" and don't make for an obviously profitable franchise, people with money don't like risk, they don't want to spend on Sleeping Dogs 2 and find its barely profitable or makes a loss.

If they are mostly talking about console sales, which so many dev's/publishers focus on, ignoring digital sales probably doesn't change the story that much, the numbers will change but not their "lets wring the money out of console gamers" concept.

Maybe I'm wrong but consolers tend to stick with a franchise that sucks more than PC gamers, though a large amount of that is the vast number of sports franchises put out year after year as its a gaming segment that really just doesn't translate to PC's.
 
If digital sales are not included,wouldn't that mean all Steam sales of the games too??

That would mean a fair percentage of all PC sales,are not included in the figures.

So how is the AMD Gaming Evolved programme,which is to do with PCs,got any bearing on the figures published?? If anything,it means consoles sales of the games have not done as well as the companies expected,and the article specifically mentioned the North American market being the reason.

On top of this BL2 sold 6 million units accross ALL platforms in 5 months and was considered a massive success and was bundled with Nvidia cards. That includes all sales,whether discs or digital sales and probably the free Nvidia vouchers too.

TR,selling 3.4 million copies excluding digital downloads in the first month,ie,a lot of PC sales is a sudden fail??

Hitman Absolution,excluding digital sales,sold 3.6 million copies in 5 months too.

So what are the figures with Steam sales and AMD vouchers included then??
 
Last edited:
Not surprising about Hitman. They ruined the franchise. They should have stuck to what made it unique (a la Blood Money), not just copied a load of other games.

Sleeping Dogs was quite good though. I havent played Tomb Raider but heard good things
 
I think Sleeping Dogs could have been better advertised. The only place I heard about it was on this forum - I know it has some True Crime roots but the moniker was ditched so the game title was pretty random and it wasn't developed by a particularly well known studio so I think it needed more of a push to get it out there.
 
More information from the andybird encyclopedia of thin air guys. You should know how this works, just read his signature. No doubt these posts will be deleted soon and we'll be the only ones getting punished.

Tomb Raider, Hitman Absolution and Sleeping Dogs were outstanding titles in my opinion and would consider them a huge success.

Agreed, not played the new TR yet, but the other two are easily in my top 5 in the last year or so.
 
3 Solid games, hitman wasn't what I would have liked it to have been but wasn't terrible either. Just publishers with unrealistic expectations, their sales figures actually look pretty decent.

Thread title is lame.
 
Can you see sales figures for your games on Steam if you're a pub/dev? Or do you just have to base it off of the money you made? If not then it's a wonder Steam got this popular.
 
Yes and there are probably plenty of us who did not post because we saw no big deal in it.

Anyway Easter eggs to eat :)
 
Last edited:
You're wasting your time as im sure you've just realised.

It seems that way.

To repeat. The sales include NO digital copies.

That includes:
1.)Steam sales
2.)Sales from all other digital distribution services,such as GMG
3.)All the AMD free keys

Considering that a large percentage of sales of PC games in Europe and the US are digital copies,this means a huge percentage of PC sales not included in the numbers.

Most of the sales numbers are for consoles with the US being the main market which had lower sales than the company wanted.

However,BL2 which is considered a success,sold 6 million copies,over ALL platforms including free Nvidia keys IN 5 MONTHS.

TR,sold 3.6 million copies in 1 month EXCLUDING digital sales,ie,a fair chunk of PC sales.

Hitman Absolution sold 3.4 million copies over 5 months EXCLUDING digital sales,ie,a fair chunk of PC sales.

Unless we have ALL sales included with a breakdown over platforms,we cannot say if the PC sales of the titles are poor or not.
 
Last edited:

This is not a dig at you Greg,but surely it is because of what this Nvidia VP said a while back:

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/150892-nvidia-gave-amd-ps4-because-console-margins-are-terrible

Plus,there was a thread on the same subject on these forums IIRC.

Edit!!

Here it is:

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18497277&highlight=ps4

Nvidia attacks PS4 hardware, calls it "low-end"

Nvidia VP said:
"I'm sure there was a negotiation that went on," Tamasi told GameSpot, "and we came to the conclusion that we didn't want to do the business at the price those guys were willing to pay."

Its part of the PR war between AMD and Nvidia,which is mostly for stockholders.
 
Last edited:
My point is being an Nvidia owner, I look at those threads and read it. If I deem it as baiting, I wouldn't bother to reply but a select few are getting wound up over nothing. It isn't damning AMD at all and I don't see why all the pitch forks are out and even one person screaming for a suspension.

Some people need to man up.
 
Just done a search on amazon . com and pc version looks like it was only available as download key, which fits in with what someone replied in the original link, so this is purely xbox ps3 sales
 
Back
Top Bottom