Aliens: Colonial Marines Tops UK Sales Charts

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

looks like with duke nukem. game is crap but still people bought it. im one of them :(
you see the title and you dont really want to think that it will be bad. but it was.

at least i dint get my self alien CM. dint had interest in the first place and after hearing how bad it is, im glad i dint waste my money on it.

"Top 40 Entertainment Software (All Prices), Week Ending 15th February 2013
1. ALIENS: COLONIAL MARINES - SEGA"

Its not surprising that its top first week of its release, given there were like NO reviews up before release, the 'demo' looked good, all the 'previews' from game journalists, who had seen the demo and whatever marketing spin they got from gearbox/sega/whatever had said it was going to be good, and if it was at least half good with the 'aliens' brand attached, you'd expect it to sell well.

Anyone that thought 'yeah that could be good' and had that thought confirmed with previews/screenshots, and lets not forget the 'demo', would be forgiven for thinking it was going to be good and pre-ordered it, or bought on release. Its just AFTER it was released then reviewed and/or experienced first hand, that people realised it's poo, and from that point on it will not be in the 'top 40' slot lol.

I don't see why anyone would think those people in the UK are stupid in particular, it was sneakily marketed and they were conned basically, I saw Aliens CM on the 'top selling' section of GreenManGaming at like #1 or #2 for a long time up until the release, since its not even on the top 10 list any more.

So really don't mock the poor people in the UK, everyone was equally mislead (I wouldn't be surprised seeing more stories like this for other markets). I think that everyone that saw the train-wreck that was Aliens CM will be a lot more wary of pre-ordering and/or buying without seeing a review or at least what the final release will have in it, and having this stinker at #1 spot on any 'best selling' list *should* hopefully point out the problem with the current system of not letting the media post reviews until after release, and putting out blatantly misleading hype/demos/etc.

LtFerret:

Gabanuka:
Dammit pre-orders, you did this to us!

I would like to formally apologise for my people and like to remind you all that we made Banjo Kazooie and Little Big Planet.

God save the Queen!

Your country also made the new DMC.
And not even Banjo and Kazooie can make me forgive you for that.

We're not asking for it, fanboy tears go great in tea.

OT: It's pre-orders most likely, that and outside gaming related magazines the only non-internet reviews you'll see are the occasional few in the back of newspapers. Combine it with sweet fuck all else coming out recently and boom, turd at No. 1. Something tells me there's going to be a hell of a lot of trade ins soon enough.

shintakie10:

Your Gaffer:

Ukomba:

It knocked down Dead Space 3. Dead Space 3's launch was already not as successful as Dead Space 2, down 26.6% compared to Dead Space 2. Aliens: CM is in direct competition with Dead Space, Dead Space drawing heavily on Aliens as it does. If Dead Space 3 doesn't earn enough, EA is unlikely to continue producing games.

So let me explain why that does not ring true.

First of all, EA did not publish ACM, Sega did. So EA can't say "Aliens is doing so well, lets put all our resources into making our next game Aliens: Colonial Marines 2."

Second of all Dead Space is one of EA's biggest and best franchises. EA has put a lot of development and marketing dollars into it. They are not going to drop it because a game released a week later has displaced it from the top spot on the sales chart. Dead Space 3 now occupies the 2nd spot. That means it is the 2nd best selling game in the UK at the time the chart was published.

Most games have the majority of the sales they are ever going to generate happening in the first month they are out, front loaded around the time of actual release.

So you are trying to tell me that a game that was top of the charts and currently the 2nd best selling game in the whole UK is going be killed because it didn't sit at number one forever? Do you know how crazy that sounds?

I'm not trying to be mean here, but think about it like a business person. You've invested a lot of money into a franchise, it has had good reviews, and has been at the top of the sales charts. Why would you kill that franchise?

He's probably referrin to this.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/117931-EA-Aims-to-Broaden-Dead-Space-Audience

Specifically the part about needin to sell 5 million units to remain viable.

If A:CM displaced it after it was already not doin nearly as well as its predecessors, the chances of it reachin that mark seem slim.

These guys say this stuff to the press to make the fans nervous I think and try and goad them into buying the game. The idea that a game needs to sell 5 million copies to be viable is frankly preposterous, even for a AAA release.

chozo_hybrid:

Rainboq:
Game over man, game over.

People really should have listened to the critics on this one, the game is super generic, its really only redeeming thing is the multiplayer, and even then.

To be fair, their was a review embargo, so people would have had to had inside sources or waited a few extra days to know what reviewers think.

RicoADF:

Rainboq:
Game over man, game over.

People really should have listened to the critics on this one, the game is super generic, its really only redeeming thing is the multiplayer, and even then.

Some people enjoy it, such as myself. Critics give CoD high marks, that's enough to show they've got a different interest to me. I'm sick of MMSs, ACM is a breath of fresh air.

Yeah, not to mention I'm finding the multiplayer to be well done. I know the game has issues, mostly with its campaign, but other shooters get away with having good multiplayer and a shit campaign and still get 9's and 10's. Not saying this game is worth of those scores, but it is something that bugs me.

Lots of shooters get away with havin a SHORT campaign, not a shit one/buggy one.

Take most CoD games that come out. The main campaign is usually short, around 4 to 6 hours. However you never except the AI to just randomly stop workin in those 4 to 6 hours, or for the AI to walk directly into your bullets, or for it to be completely unable to hit you at any range. You can also expect decentish set pieces where the action is pretty intense, if a bit overdone.

In A:CM, the opposite is true. There's a decently long campaign, sure, but its AI is shit. Not the kind of shit AI that generally gets thrown at us, but the kind that attracts bullets. On top of that the animations and graphics are just...subpar. I know, I know, graphics aren't everythin, but come on. That acid blood looks like fuckin blood from AVP 2000. Thats pathetic.

This is just saddening and it makes me glad I never jumped into buying the game since hearing bad news just a day before the game's release on my island.

Seriously I just want another studio that isn't Gearbox to work on a proper fully fledged Aliens game or hell even a new AVP because at this point I'm never going to buy ACM because it's just that shit of a game that's really no different to COD in terms of campaign/graphics and bugs.

Fuck that game I'm going to continue enjoying my time playing AVP 2010, a game that was actually finished and plays far better than a game that spent 6 years and wasn't cared for at all.

As a last note ACM for all the 6 years it took cost around 60 million to make so yeah I can't see it ever making a return profit.

Your Gaffer:

Ukomba:

Your Gaffer:

How does that make any sense?

It knocked down Dead Space 3. Dead Space 3's launch was already not as successful as Dead Space 2, down 26.6% compared to Dead Space 2. Aliens: CM is in direct competition with Dead Space, Dead Space drawing heavily on Aliens as it does. If Dead Space 3 doesn't earn enough, EA is unlikely to continue producing games.

So let me explain why that does not ring true.

First of all, EA did not publish ACM, Sega did. So EA can't say "Aliens is doing so well, lets put all our resources into making our next game Aliens: Colonial Marines 2."

Second of all Dead Space is one of EA's biggest and best franchises. EA has put a lot of development and marketing dollars into it. They are not going to drop it because a game released a week later has displaced it from the top spot on the sales chart. Dead Space 3 now occupies the 2nd spot. That means it is the 2nd best selling game in the UK at the time the chart was published.

Most games have the majority of the sales they are ever going to generate happening in the first month they are out, front loaded around the time of actual release.

So you are trying to tell me that a game that was top of the charts and currently the 2nd best selling game in the whole UK is going be killed because it didn't sit at number one forever? Do you know how crazy that sounds?

I'm not trying to be mean here, but think about it like a business person. You've invested a lot of money into a franchise, it has had good reviews, and has been at the top of the sales charts. Why would you kill that franchise?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/122502-Rumor-Poor-Sales-May-Have-Killed-Dead-Space?utm_source=news&utm_medium=index_carousel&utm_campaign=all

Fricken called it.

Ukomba:

Your Gaffer:

Ukomba:

It knocked down Dead Space 3. Dead Space 3's launch was already not as successful as Dead Space 2, down 26.6% compared to Dead Space 2. Aliens: CM is in direct competition with Dead Space, Dead Space drawing heavily on Aliens as it does. If Dead Space 3 doesn't earn enough, EA is unlikely to continue producing games.

So let me explain why that does not ring true.

First of all, EA did not publish ACM, Sega did. So EA can't say "Aliens is doing so well, lets put all our resources into making our next game Aliens: Colonial Marines 2."

Second of all Dead Space is one of EA's biggest and best franchises. EA has put a lot of development and marketing dollars into it. They are not going to drop it because a game released a week later has displaced it from the top spot on the sales chart. Dead Space 3 now occupies the 2nd spot. That means it is the 2nd best selling game in the UK at the time the chart was published.

Most games have the majority of the sales they are ever going to generate happening in the first month they are out, front loaded around the time of actual release.

So you are trying to tell me that a game that was top of the charts and currently the 2nd best selling game in the whole UK is going be killed because it didn't sit at number one forever? Do you know how crazy that sounds?

I'm not trying to be mean here, but think about it like a business person. You've invested a lot of money into a franchise, it has had good reviews, and has been at the top of the sales charts. Why would you kill that franchise?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/122502-Rumor-Poor-Sales-May-Have-Killed-Dead-Space?utm_source=news&utm_medium=index_carousel&utm_campaign=all

Fricken called it.

So you remembered this from two weeks ago and felt compelled to come back with a told you so?

In any case, just b/c they say that doesn't mean the IP is not going to surface again.

Ukomba:

Your Gaffer:

Ukomba:

It knocked down Dead Space 3. Dead Space 3's launch was already not as successful as Dead Space 2, down 26.6% compared to Dead Space 2. Aliens: CM is in direct competition with Dead Space, Dead Space drawing heavily on Aliens as it does. If Dead Space 3 doesn't earn enough, EA is unlikely to continue producing games.

So let me explain why that does not ring true.

First of all, EA did not publish ACM, Sega did. So EA can't say "Aliens is doing so well, lets put all our resources into making our next game Aliens: Colonial Marines 2."

Second of all Dead Space is one of EA's biggest and best franchises. EA has put a lot of development and marketing dollars into it. They are not going to drop it because a game released a week later has displaced it from the top spot on the sales chart. Dead Space 3 now occupies the 2nd spot. That means it is the 2nd best selling game in the UK at the time the chart was published.

Most games have the majority of the sales they are ever going to generate happening in the first month they are out, front loaded around the time of actual release.

So you are trying to tell me that a game that was top of the charts and currently the 2nd best selling game in the whole UK is going be killed because it didn't sit at number one forever? Do you know how crazy that sounds?

I'm not trying to be mean here, but think about it like a business person. You've invested a lot of money into a franchise, it has had good reviews, and has been at the top of the sales charts. Why would you kill that franchise?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/122502-Rumor-Poor-Sales-May-Have-Killed-Dead-Space?utm_source=news&utm_medium=index_carousel&utm_campaign=all

Fricken called it.

Since you got your own told ya so post I figured I should return the favor:

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/03/how-rumors-of-dead-spaces-death-may-have-been-greatly-exaggerated/

I so frickin' called it.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here