Why Bionic Commando: Rearmed sold more than the regular game
Bionic Commando: Rearmed was one of the best selling downloadable games on XBL and PSN online services. The game sold extremely well and was praised by critics as a top notch game. However, oddly enough, the full retail version of game did not fare so well despite the success of the downloadable title.
Bionic Commando: Rearmed (BC: R) came out mid last year to much fanfare. The game reimaged the classic title by sticking to the tried and true 2D, side-scrolling formula. After releasing on XBL and PSN, the game was purchased more than 130,000 times in just one week, which is a sharp contrast to the full retail version of the game which came out a couple months ago.
The full retail version of the game sold poorly (27,000 first month) and received middling scores compared to the 9/10’s BC: R received across the board. The irony here is that BC: R was crafted to ignite interest in the Bionic Commando game in preparation for the full retail release. However, it seems like BC: R might have cannibalized sales/interest for the full retail release instead.
The reason BC: R was so successful was because it really was a solid game with very little flaw. The game also provided some nostalgia to fans of the classic title. However, the full retail version completely changed the dynamics of the game by going full 3D. The game is often compared to the Spiderman game, which wasn’t all that popular amongst most gamers.
This is clearly a situation where a game was not able to successfully transition from 2D to 3D similarly to Castlevania: Legacy of Darkness. Also, considering the critical success of BC: R, the game was good enough to satisfy any Bionic Commando cravings gamers might have had.
Just by canvassing the forums, the general consensus seems to be that BC: R is the definitive version to own rather than the full retail version of the game. CAPCOM may want to consider a different marketing strategy in the future to prevent games from cannibalizing off each other.
Related Posts:
38 Responses to “Why Bionic Commando: Rearmed sold more than the regular game”
Leave a Reply:
You must be logged in to post a comment. Don't have an account? Register today!
July 22nd, 2009
Why Bionic Commando: Rearmed sold more than the regular game?
because the Regular Game SUCK ASS. and it is nothing like the original.
July 22nd, 2009
It’s funny, GameStop has the new Bionic Commando game for $20 new. I was considering it… but then decided against it.
I think rearmed came out so long ago, any hype it may have create died down by the time the retail release finally came out.
Also the whole Infamous vs Prototype thing over shadowed this. And to add to that, BC got bad reviews. Finally the fact the Capcom whored out the demo as a 360 exclusive pissed off a lot of potential PS3 fans.
July 22nd, 2009
Updated Goodness! Didn´t know about this, I think I´ll get it for PC.
July 22nd, 2009
The ppl who made Bionic Commando were also working on Terminator Salvation (the game) and both of those game came out at the same time. so they probably rushed both of those games
July 22nd, 2009
“Finally the fact the Capcom whored out the demo as a 360 exclusive pissed off a lot of potential PS3 fans”
For $20 i may have given it a shot…….if it had a demo.
you lose Capcom.
July 22nd, 2009
I actually have played the 360 demo.. and it wasn’t very good at all. But serously why would you make a demo exclusive to one platform?
July 22nd, 2009
Barnabe,
Because you know your game sucks and nobody is going to buy it anyways, so you may as well try tapping into the sad little superiority complexes of Xbox owners all over the country in order stimulate a few thousand more sales than you would otherwise get.
-Arvis
July 22nd, 2009
Wow good point.
July 22nd, 2009
That does make perfect sense.
July 22nd, 2009
“why would you make a demo exclusive to one platform?”
Why don’t you guys know the answer to that simple question? I thought we’ve been over this already! Sony charges hugh fees to put content on PSN. Therefore a developer has to make the decision as to if it will be profitable enough to warrent putting content on the PS3. It also cost more to develope for the PS3. Many demos have come to the 360 that have PS3 does not get so I don’t know why you guys are suprised. Also given the poor game sales of the PS3 it’s a no brainer why it didn’t happen.
July 22nd, 2009
Yeah I screwed that whole sentence up but you know what I’m saying.
July 22nd, 2009
Sorry CAD, Arvis already got this one nailed.
July 22nd, 2009
Yeah, Capcom has plenty o’ demos on the PSN. So that argument is debunked. M$ wrote a check with enough zeros at the end of it. The developers knew that the game stunk and wasn’t going to sell, so they figured they would try to get money anyway possible.
July 22nd, 2009
CAD’s explanation makes a lot more sense than the dribble posted before and after it.
July 23rd, 2009
CAD
“Sony charges hugh fees to put content on PSN”
Huge fees? I am pretty sure it is just a few cents
July 23rd, 2009
Yeah and that was what Activision CEO was complaining about also. A few cents…..Righttt!!! More like a few hundred thousands.
July 23rd, 2009
Harry is funny that we talked about this a few months ago and these guys quickly forget the restrictions that their beloved Sony has but up in the face of developers. Then they want to blame Microsoft. Idiots.
July 23rd, 2009
watch you going to look stupid when I find the actual amount. but u trust harry more than u trust ur wife
July 23rd, 2009
so they Actual Bandwith fee is “$0.16/gig”
wow thats sound like a few hundreds right CAD?
Sony has been doing this for about 9 months now. This is nothing new. Xbox fanboys are just making a butthurt deal about it just to make Sony look bad. Sony is charging the devs this and not the consumers because the devs are the ones making the money, not the buyers.
and I dont see dev backing away from Sony as the Xbox live hit “Castle Crasher” its making its way to the PSN.
Another thing Sony does is if you make a PSN Exclusive game, Sony pays for the Entire Development cost which means its going to be Pure Profits for devs.
July 23rd, 2009
Publishing sources told us that Sony’s previously un-reported new “PlayStation Network Bandwidth Fee” is forcing them to think twice about what content they offer to PS3 gamers for download.
Until October 1 2008, video game publishers who wanted to offer downloadable content on the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 didn’t have to worry about getting a bill from Microsoft and Sony.
The million-plus downloads that a popular demo or map pack might receive could delight gamers, but rack up some expensive bandwidth costs. No problem: the publishers, who already pay a licensing fee to get their games on the two big platforms, could count on the platform holders — Microsoft and Sony — to pay the cost of piping that digital content to gamers.
That situation changed with the PS3 on October 1 of last year, when Sony implemented a 16 cents per Gigabyte fee to publishers for paid and free downloadable content, according to publishing sources familiar with Sony’s policy.
Game publishers are not happy about it.
MTV Multiplayer has verified that a letter sent to publishers last fall detailed the policy. It applies a 16-cent charge to every Gigabyte of content downloaded from the PS3’s PSN online store. For free content, like demos, those charges apply only during the first 60 days of the content’s release. For paid content, like map packs, the charges rack up in perpetuity, or until that content is removed from the PlayStation 3’s online store.
Publishing source: “It’s a new thing we have to budget. It’s not cool. It sucks.”
This “PlayStation Network Bandwidth” fee has been unpopular with game companies, according to at least three publishing and development sources who spoke to MTV Multiplayer about the policy on the condition of anonymity so as not to get their companies on Sony’s bad side.
“It definitely makes us think about how we view the distribution of content related to our games when it is free for us to do it on the web, on Xbox Live, or any other way — including broadcast — than on Sony’s platform,” one publishing source said. “It’s a new thing we have to budget. It’s not cool. It sucks.”
Publishers already pay costs for creating a demo, a process that can run six figures. Sony’s fees add a new expense. For a demo that is sized at exactly 1GB and is downloaded one million times, that would add an extra $160,000 that Sony is now charging and that, according to publishing sources, Microsoft isn’t. That’s what could scare publishers from placing content on the PS3.
The cost estimate is relevant because demos can be that big and that popular. Demos typically run at close to 1GB, with Ubisoft’s “Hawx” demo weighing in at 834MB, “Resident Evil 5″ at 942MB and the demo for the upcoming “Legend of Wrestlemania” at 1003MB, which is just over 1GB. On the Xbox 360, the “Halo Wars” demo has exceeded two million downloads. The “Resident Evil 5″ demo, across the Xbox 360 and PS3, was downloaded more than four million times by late February.
July 23rd, 2009
that statement does not prove that the fee is more that $0.16
“the demo for the upcoming “Legend of Wrestlemania” at 1003MB”
^^^ which means it only going to cost THQ $0.16 for the demo. if the demo is downloaded 1 million times it will cost them 160,000 which is still less than what dev pay for advertisement as ass we all know demos show what the game is all about better than stupid ADS.
NEXT TIME WRITE ur OWN STATEMENTS. because MTV certantly did not prove me wrong and it surely didnt mentioned any developers backing aways from Sony. all the have its rummors
July 23rd, 2009
Well I guess Math is not your strong point.
July 23rd, 2009
well i guess commons sense in not your strong point,
but many blinded 360 fanboys has the same lack of common sense as you.
July 23rd, 2009
Actually, I feel like Barnabe and CAD could BOTH be right on this one.
I think it’s obvious that Microsoft gave Capcom at least a modest “donation” to make the demo exclusive to their console, but probably not very much. But, while I disagree with CAD’s assertion that the PSN bandwidth is restrictive, I would think that Capcom thought to themselves “Well, we have a demo for a not-so-great game we’re trying to promote, and we could either put it on BOTH consoles and PAY money, or put it on ONE console and MAKE a little money. Hmmm…” And much chin scratching ensued.
-Arvis
July 23rd, 2009
I’d just ask why Capcom inparticular are releasing a fair proportion of PSone classics on PSN if fees are so restrictive.
July 23rd, 2009
They’re not restrictive. It’s just a sticking point for fanboys.
-Arvis
July 23rd, 2009
If common sence is putting out a free demo that is subjuective to Bandwith fees for the first 60 days of a game that is building off the hype of the PSN version of Rearmd then no I wouldn’t make a demo for the PS3 either.
“Publishers already pay costs for creating a demo, a process that can run six figures. Sony’s fees add a new expense. For a demo that is sized at exactly 1GB and is downloaded one million times, that would add an extra $160,000 that Sony is now charging and that, according to publishing sources, Microsoft isn’t. That’s what could scare publishers from placing content on the PS3.”
I think that sums it up.
July 23rd, 2009
Arvis, looks like you’re right again…
July 23rd, 2009
Doesn’t Capcom have it’s own separate section on the PS store? (they do and have for quite some time)
So I’m supposed to believe that regardless of the 50 or so Capsom demos on the PS Store, they decided out of the blue that it would be too expensive to put Bionic Commando up, and M$ didn’t give them anythign at all?
July 23rd, 2009
They’re putting PSone games on there because they at least get some money out of it back. Duh!
July 23rd, 2009
Eh harry, think your boys had better get Warne and McGrath out of retirement, hehe…
July 24th, 2009
lock_down,
Definitely Warnie, but he’s too busy getting flogged at poker every night. McGrath probably not! The stupid thing about it is that they persist with Mitchell Johnson because he went through a purple patch in South Africa and they leave Stuart Clark out of the side. Hopefully Brett Lee is fit for next Friday so we can at least have a strike bowler rather than bowlers who are happy to contain runs.
Either way, I have already conceded that you’re going to be taking the ashes back, and deservedly so, England are the better team this time around. It’s a shame that Flintoff is retiring from test cricket after this series, that guy is nothing but trouble for the Aussies, and even I get some satisfaction seeing him wipe the smug look off Ricky Ponting’s face.
July 24th, 2009
It’s really a miracle we’re doing well at all, after all the disarray earlier in the year.
July 25th, 2009
Well they seemed to pull themselves together rather well. It’s about time Strauss scored something over 30 against the Aussies for once.
July 25th, 2009
Well he is an opening batsman, so let’s not be too harsh…
July 26th, 2009
Yeah but even I could get runs off Johnson.
Actually that’s not true. I bat at number 10 for my team, who are in the B grade 15th division, which basically means we just go there and drink between overs.
July 27th, 2009
Anyone who has BC:Rearmd on the PS3 there is a huge update for the game right now. just start the game u’ll see what it is
July 27th, 2009
You know what, guys, everyone here is getting pretty darn sick of your endless cricket ranting.
Take heed!!!
-Arvis