DmC Sales 'solid'

[IncarnatedDemon]

Let's speculate guys. Since a thread i made got closed for me being a baddy:

How much do you think DmC sold from January to April ? That's 4 months.


I think it sold around 900K. I heard in February DmC sold less than 50K.

And it would make sense that DmC sold below 1.15m:
1) Capcom changed their sale forecast for THIRD time
2) If it had reached 1.15m, they would have said "It reached what we hoped", instead of "Solid sales".


So yeah i think DmC sold below 1M, and i explained above why.

 

[CheeseKao]

Let's speculate guys. Since a thread i made got closed for me being a baddy:

How much do you think DmC sold from January to April ? That's 4 months.


I think it sold around 900K. I heard in February DmC sold less than 50K.

And it would make sense that DmC sold below 1.15m:
1) Capcom changed their sale forecast for THIRD time
2) If it had reached 1.15m, they would have said "It reached what we hoped", instead of "Solid sales".


So yeah i think DmC sold below 1M, and i explained above why.

I'm guessing around 900k physical sales and 50-100k digital sales.

 

[DisappointedSparda]

Another thing, if Capcom cannot be trusted in this investor report, then they can't be trusted in the other one as well, the report where they said that their was a decline in quality due to excessive outsourcing. I guess both statements should be interpreted as damage control, you can't simply pick and choose the ones that are valid based on how they suit your personal biases.

Well first of all Capcom can't lie about their sales, that would probably be against the law. They already have the actual sales listed on there investor site so there's no way they can lie, and if they did lie they would probably put higher numbers then what there actual projection called for.

Also, you also bring up a good point. If Capcom is lying and if reviewers are getting paid by Capcom to give DmC good scores...then shouldn't we question all the games in the past that have received good scores? Ya know, like DMC 1 and DMC 3? They obviously must be paid off right? Because DMC 3 can't be a score of 9 game, right?

I mean the average DmC score i've seen in various sites are around an 8 and a 4 stars out of 5, this isn't exactly the score i would pay top dollar for if i was Capcom if that's the best they can come up with.

Anyway, like you said, people can't simply pick and choose ones that are convenient for them.

 

[DisappointedSparda]

In which way? We already knew this would happen, Capcom expectation sales gave us that argument. So I'm not defending (since I wasn't wrong), I'm just refuting points.

In which way was your post damaging? You're trying to gloss over the faults of the old series to make it better in comparison to DmC for your convenience.

Anyway, no one is saying that DmC was a total success (only the optimistic really), "solid sales" means it sold adequately which does not mean total success. In Capcom's eyes DmC sold fine enough to them the moment the fiscal year ended. Konami said recently said that MGR "sold steadily" again, i know its cryptic language they're using, but to them it sold adequately that it wasn't a total loss but it was what they totally hoped for either.

 

[IncarnatedDemon]

Well first of all Capcom can't lie about their sales, that would probably be against the law. They already have the actual sales listed on there investor site so there's no way they can lie, and if they did lie they would probably put higher numbers then what there actual projection called for.

Also, you also bring up a good point. If Capcom is lying and if reviewers are getting paid by Capcom to give DmC good scores...then shouldn't we question all the games in the past that have received good scores? Ya know, like DMC 1 and DMC 3? They obviously must be paid off right? Because DMC 3 can't be a score of 9 game, right?

I mean the average DmC score i've seen in various sites are around an 8 and a 4 stars out of 5, this isn't exactly the score i would pay top dollar for if i was Capcom if that's the best they can come up with.

Anyway, like you said, people can't simply pick and choose ones that are convenient for them.

There has been many indications that sites take payments indirectly.

It's not Black and White, there are many different scenarios.

Sometimes a reviewer gives a game a bad or good score out of simple bias
Sometimes a reviewer gives a game a good score out of corporate bias i.e they have been bribed

Sometimes a reviewer gives a game a good/soft score out of bias leaking into them by having a good relation with a game company
e.g Angry Joe: i am not saying he's bribed but i feel he is in "happyland" when it comes to Witcher company. Because they have been kind to him.
Agngry Joe goes to Witcher studio
That fun experience could make Joe be biased when reviewing a witcher game. Perhaps the Witcher game is not that good, but Joe will still at end of video say "It's worth a buy" when in reality it's not.

Sometimes a reviewer gives a game a good or bad score based on their user experience
This is bad because if you don't like RPGs, and your job is to review a RPG, then you will slam a 8/10 because you thought "I didn't have fun" i.e it wasn't your taste.
A example of this could be God Hand IGN, they gave it 3/10, and i hear the game is pretty fun brawler. So why 3/10? Surely such game deserves at least 6/10 lol

Sometimes a reviewer gives a game a good or bad score because they are being ethnocentric
Sometimes a reviewer gives a game a good or bad score because they don't know better

And on top of all that, these professional reviewers are getting paid for their job, so they may give a game a lazy review and not a indepth one because they must meet a deadline.

Professional btw is another word for "I get paid to do this", it does not mean they are good at their job.

 

[CheeseKao]

And on top of all that, these professional reviewers are getting paid for their job, so they may give a game a lazy review and not a indepth one.

Professional btw is another word for "I get paid to do this", it does not mean they are good at their job.

Why not just call them paid reviewers?

 

[IncarnatedDemon]

Why not just call them paid reviewers?

What u mean?

 

[CheeseKao]

What u mean?

Never mind. I thought that professional = pro. I googled it and it wasn't the same.

 

[IncarnatedDemon]

Never mind. I thought that professional = pro. I googled it and it wasn't the same.

I was about to say that. The misconception that professional meant that your pro at your job.

Then again i am sure pro comes from professional. And it is true that in certain professions a professional person knows better than a non professional. There are exceptions of course but usually we know that a person who works for living with fixing computers knows more than someone who ocasionally does that for themself.

But for game reviewers i don't think there is any framework for how they review games. And many people seems to be reviewing games on wrong basis.
Many good reviews comes from Youtubers who aren't professionals, but they are CRITICS.


If i was a leader of a gaming site i would have made a framework for reviewing games for each genre.

So if you got a adventure game to review you go based on:
Is the story good
Is the enviroments awesome and nice?

etc

i.e reviewing a genre game based on what it should be about and not what it shouldn't be about.
For example i wouldn't say that fast paced action like DmC or MGR is a good thing in a exploration game. Because 1) It would prolly take a toll on the game's space 2) People want to explore and do little killing.

 

[Martius]

Why not just call them paid reviewers?

Eh, people are still thinking that paid reviews means stuffed envelope or money transfer? Check video describing that:

It just as IncarnatedDemon said, it more like how publishers and devs can put their influence on press.

 

[CheeseKao]

Eh, people are still thinking that paid reviews means stuffed envelope or money transfer? Check video describing that:

That was a good watch but when I said "Why not just call them paid reviewers?", I meant it quite literally as in, they get paid to review games and therefore should be simply called paid reviewers instead of professional reviewers but that was before I knew professional =/= pro.

 

[IncarnatedDemon]

That was a good watch but when I said "Why not just call them paid reviewers?", I meant it quite literally as in, they get paid to review games and therefore should be simply called paid reviewers instead of professional reviewers but that was before I knew professional =/= pro.

Perhaps we should call them by that as giving them professional term is blowing their expertise in reviewing out of proportion.

 

[Martius]

That was a good watch but when I said "Why not just call them paid reviewers?", I meant it quite literally as in, they get paid to review games and therefore should be simply called paid reviewers instead of professional reviewers but that was before I knew professional =/= pro.

Sorry for missreading, people are using such words so often it can get confusing.

 

[CheeseKao]

Perhaps we should call them by that as giving them professional term is blowing their expertise in reviewing out of proportion.

Perhaps we should. But I generally just regard anyone who reviews a game as a 'reviewer'. Nothing more, nothing less.

Sorry for missreading, people are using such words so often it can get confusing.

It's all right. Thanks for the video though.

 

[Alittleacorn]

http://www.vg247.com/2010/09/02/inafune-devil-may-cry-5-to-have-western-touch-to-attract-buyers/

Look at the date, it's the year DmC got revealed. They were probably using DMC5 as a secret title to hide they were doing a reboot. And it's not like they were lying because it is the fifth Devil May Cry game. It's a dodge tactic, I've seen it done before when they don't want to reveal stuff that happens in a game.

Yes, the HD collection was not released on PC. I was talking more about DmC in VGChartz, they have not tracked the PC sellings until now.

ah, you're right I didn't even notice before but the PC sales columns are all zeroes. If they haven't totaled up the sales from the PC version, there's a good chance that they could push DmC's sales over the .81 million of the HD collection, yeah?

I'm hoping the PC version sold a ****load, in that case. I really don't want this series to die due to low sales : (

I don't bother with the VGChartz anymore. If I'm right, it only shows sales for the first ten weeks, after that it's yearly. So we won't know anymore on the sales for that site until January 15th next year. But even then it's not showing PC sales or steam sales.

But if they're saying sales are solid then it's a good thing, not bad. Sad thing is it doesn't matter, because even if they come out and say a year from now 'DmC sold 2 million' someone would say 'they pulled that number out of their asses' just like people had to say every single review was paid, Ninja Theory were insulting classic Dante when they weren't, and again saying Tameem was insulting them on his twitter when they were insulting him in the first place by picking a fight.

Excuses, excuses, excuses. Anything positive said gets twisted around to be negative and the fans get labeled blind sheep for what? Liking a video game? I guess that means we're all blind sheep for picking up a PS3 or a Xbox360 then. It's downright silly, and then they say they're the victim when they're victimising people in the first place on some desperate mission they're on to bring the series to it's knees that they've lost their minds and they can't openly debate something, but have just got to shove their opinions down other's throat and stick around for something they don't even like.That's why I gave up on youtube for quite a long time.

 

[DisappointedSparda]

I don't know why reviews are look upon in such high, or low, regard. A review is just one's person opinion. A review is there to give an interpretation of what they think of the game and what we can take from it. This isn't the 1990's anymore where internet was just a dream, we're living in the now where you can find out about a game before it even releases, even play the game before it releases.

Simply put: people who say that reviewers are lying and are paid by Capcom would have to take into account that ALL of Capcom's gave have been given a score they don't deserve, even good games like DMC 3 and DMC 1. So they can't use that excuse anymore. Maybe people who like DmC should protest every review score that DMC 3 got and say that the reviewers were paid off, but of course, then we'll get all the Haters to say they weren't and the reviewer was right even though they can't really prove that the reviewer was in the wrong, but yet come up with no evidence to counter that the reviewer wasn't bribed and such. See how it goes. It really is all about pushing ones own tastes against another, which is a meaningless argument in the end. It's like some people don't have any dignity for there own words. I can respect someone not liking the game because its not to there standard, but to try to find excuses to make it seem like its some kind of shady conspiracy theory besides ones own self-importance is really beyond desperate to find vindication for something as shallow as a video game review. This isn't like treason or something.

 

[IncarnatedDemon]

I don't know why reviews are look upon in such high, or low, regard. A review is just one's person opinion.

A review is supposed to be a objective summary of the game. It's not meant to be a opinion.
If it's just a opinion, then why should anyone care for what the "critics" have to say about any game?

Not that i care but in general whats purpose of "Critically acclaimed game" when its just a opinion.

Again...reviews arent meant to be a opinion. Especially one written by people who are paid to make a review.

 

[Chancey289]

I don't know why reviews are look upon in such high, or low, regard. A review is just one's person opinion. A review is there to give an interpretation of what they think of the game and what we can take from it. This isn't the 1990's anymore where internet was just a dream, we're living in the now where you can find out about a game before it even releases, even play the game before it releases.

Simply put: people who say that reviewers are lying and are paid by Capcom would have to take into account that ALL of Capcom's gave have been given a score they don't deserve, even good games like DMC 3 and DMC 1. So they can't use that excuse anymore. Maybe people who like DmC should protest every review score that DMC 3 got and say that the reviewers were paid off, but of course, then we'll get all the Haters to say they weren't and the reviewer was right even though they can't really prove that the reviewer was in the wrong, but yet come up with no evidence to counter that the reviewer wasn't bribed and such. See how it goes. It really is all about pushing ones own tastes against another, which is a meaningless argument in the end. It's like some people don't have any dignity for there own words. I can respect someone not liking the game because its not to there standard, but to try to find excuses to make it seem like its some kind of shady conspiracy theory besides ones own self-importance is really beyond desperate to find vindication for something as shallow as a video game review. This isn't like treason or something.

When it comes to reviews people's reactions usually go like this:
-*any* good review is sponsored and there's conflict of interest
-*any* bad review is honest
-*any* review that gives the game pretty much less than a 8 or 9 out of 10 is prejudiced or has no idea what they're talking about.

 

[Chancey289]

A review is supposed to be a objective summary of the game. It's not meant to be a opinion.
If it's just a opinion, then why should anyone care for what the "critics" have to say about any game?

Not that i care but in general whats purpose of "Critically acclaimed game" when its just a opinion.

Again...reviews arent meant to be a opinion. Especially one written by people who are paid to make a review.

I don't think people do give a crap about what critics say. After all, I read an article yesterday saying Aliens:Colonial Marines sold 1.31 million copies. WTF?!

Maybe people are just really really dumb. Colonial Marines is only the most universally hated game since Duke Nukem Forever being not only a terrible game but an absolute punch in the nuts if you're an Aliens fan.

 

[DisappointedSparda]

A review is supposed to be a objective summary of the game. It's not meant to be a opinion.
If it's just a opinion, then why should anyone care for what the "critics" have to say about any game?

Not that i care but in general whats purpose of "Critically acclaimed game" when its just a opinion.

Again...reviews arent meant to be a opinion. Especially one written by people who are paid to make a review.

All reviews are biased, an opinion is biased whether for or against the game. There's no such thing as a objective opinion because one will favor things that another might not.

When it comes to reviews people's reactions usually go like this:
-*any* good review is sponsored and there's conflict of interest
-*any* bad review is honest
-*any* review that gives the game pretty much less than a 8 or 9 out of 10 is prejudiced or has no idea what they're talking about.

That can easily be twisted in order for said person who does or doesn't like the game to twist into their own convenience. Like say if one person read two reviews on MGR and one was negative and one was positive and the person reading both was a fan, it doesn't take a genius who he or she would say is the review that is "unfair". This really is just running around in circles really. I'm already starting to get a headache from this back and forth thing with no conclusion and everyone trying to get the last word.