im not sore, the game looks awesome and im really glad to see its selling well! Gonna play my copy next month hopefully. It was just meta commentary on how ive seen alot of crash threads go.
UK Charts - Crash 4 claims #1, sold only 1000 more copies than SW Squadrons (physical only)
- Thread starter Raigor
- Start date
im not sore, the game looks awesome and im really glad to see its selling well! Gonna play my copy next month hopefully. It was just meta commentary on how ive seen alot of crash threads go.
like i said, i think the game looks really great and i cant wait to play it. Lol ive just seen a lot of bitter comparisons to mario in crash threads over the years. Hell i used to do it too, in elementary school when i had a playstation. Crash vs mario was like the battle of the play ground. Sorry my post was dumb and inflammatory.
im waiting for my xbox series x to come in before i play my copy. But i do have one, and i cant wait to play it
Agreed with this. I bought the game but went out of my way to find every deal on credit and reward scheme I could to soften the blow. £60 felt way expensive, not because it's a platformer, but because it's more expensive than most games (when you have next gen games like Dirt 5 and Yakuza 7 on the same store at £55) and because I'd previously bought the Crash Trilogy for like half of this.
I think Crash sold crazy amounts partly because it was in every supermarket with dedicated cardboard banners advertising how it was 3 classic games for £35 (or whatever it was). Crash 4 for £60 feels like a big premium compared.
I thought Crash was crazy expensive before launch but post-launch I'm glad I got it. It is incredibly polished, detailed and clearly took a lot of work and effort that deserves the price. It's a shame people are so easily able to compare it to the N-Sane Trilogy's pricing, because it really devalues the game when I'm finding that it absolutely justifies the price (independently of anything else, at least).
I find it funny considering how many people use the pricing of the Crash and Spyro collections as a point against Mario All Stars (not even counting how Mario games are longer) when it's that both brands are nowhere near Mario that they needed the lower price point and the sales of Crash 4 shows that
i mean the main reason the spyro & crash collections were brought up in comparison wasn't because those games were better than mario. it was because those collections were flat out better than mario 3d all stars since they were remakes that launched at $40 and weren't a limited release.
as for crash 4, the sales data is too limited to call this game a bust. we've only got uk sales data and it's only physical sales too.
They were also remakes of 3 games that were released on the same console with arguably the same gameplay so a lot of things were reused between them, not even counting how the price was $40 because they were irrelevant after not releasing a game for 8-10 years because they released 3 mediocre games in a row
the core gameplay between the games was basically the same but u cant argue that they all reused a lot of assets (especially in regards to spyro).
and again, the comparison was brought up because the mario collection was criticized as an overpriced port that currently has a limited release in order to make ppl pony up $60 instead of waiting to get it used. whether or not one likes one series over the other isn't really relevant here. two well made remake trilogies > port collection with an anti-consumer limited release
Last edited:
I don't think you can say this like it wasn't any effort. It probably took a lot of effort to remaster all three games (I know that multiple teams worked on the Spyro trilogy) vs Mario's direct port.
Pretty much this.
OP
OP
We got digital as well and Crash 4 did better on retail compared to digital.
SW Squadros is the biggest launch of the week in the UK when digital is included.
Yes, we got only UK sales, but UK is one of the strongest regions for Crash, so does Europe as a whole; Crash is not that popular in NA or Asia.
Why do all Crash threads have to devolve into "muh Mario/MK" at some point? FFS.
Crash will be fine, game will have legs. What saddens me is this recent trend of "plataformer = not worth $60 by default"
In every thread talking about this game's features it was always filled with "THIS IS $60?" takes despite the game being filled with content.
I hate this kind of thinking at it looks like it's widespread
Crash will be fine, game will have legs. What saddens me is this recent trend of "plataformer = not worth $60 by default"
In every thread talking about this game's features it was always filled with "THIS IS $60?" takes despite the game being filled with content.
I hate this kind of thinking at it looks like it's widespread
If a game doesn't consist of 10% walky talky segments and sad dads then it's not worth my time.
Yep :(((((((((((
PlayStation YouTube videos and tweets consistently overperform in metrics. Xbox underperforms and Nintendo is somewhere in-between usually. I don't trust them as predictive indicators one bit.
I think Death Stranding had way more views than Pokemon. And that game didn't even do a fraction in sales of what Pokemon did. I don't know when people started doing the high views= high sales thing.
I feel like this is a consequence of non-Nintendo platformers being priced under the usual retail of $60 for years. It also doesn't help that some hardly had the budget for a high production showcase(lookin at you current Sonic Team).
I can see perfectly well why people don't think a game like this is worth 60 dollars. I'm pretty sure Crash 4 didn't cost 80 million or 100 dollars most AAA games cost these days, and if those games have a 60 dollar price point, why would this game have to have that same price point when its budget was probably not even 40 million?
A 34.99 or 39.99 price point would have made more sense. Actually, isn't that what N'sane Trilogy costed? Microsoft realized this with games like State of Decay 2 having a 34 dollar price point.
This doesn't apply to Mario because... It's Mario, basically.
A 34.99 or 39.99 price point would have made more sense. Actually, isn't that what N'sane Trilogy costed? Microsoft realized this with games like State of Decay 2 having a 34 dollar price point.
This doesn't apply to Mario because... It's Mario, basically.
Planning to buy this game, but 60 buck platforming seems to be pretty expensive for me? How long is this game? Because if i buy it in my country's currency value the price is equivalent to 90 dollars (minimum wage in my country)
Having bought and enjoyed Crash: It's About Time immensely, it definitely bums me out people don't think it's worth $60. The game is such a phenomenal platformer. Really tightly designed with beautiful worlds to explore full of character. It just feels good to control all the different characters.
It isn't performing because the type of people that would pay £60 for a platformer of a retro franchise are the same people prepping for next generation.
Whether or not you think £60 is worth it, the lower prices of the previous games were perfect for a family impulse purchase.
Whether or not you think £60 is worth it, the lower prices of the previous games were perfect for a family impulse purchase.
Damn sad to see. But also, as many many others point out here, games are just too expensive. I rarely buy anything full price. Hopefully developers learn, and scale back so they can sell games in that 30-40 range. I'd take a less robust version of Crash 4 or any other IP reboot if it meant it was affordable out of the gate.
Or I'll wait and take advantage of sales to come.
Or I'll wait and take advantage of sales to come.