Fuse sells about 200 copies at most in UK.

  • 84 results
  • 1
  • 2
#51 Posted by awesomeusername (4174 posts) -

They should crawl back to Sony and get bought. Better then closing down because they release some mediocre games (Aside from Ratchet & Clank)

#52 Posted by awesomeusername (4174 posts) -

@eaxis said:

Lot's of Ea partner titles has sold poorly. Shadows of the damned deserved better, I hope Remember Me which isn't so generic can sell better.

Capcom is publishing Remember Me

#53 Edited by BaconGames (3371 posts) -

Keep in mind that Dead Island: Riptide is No. 3, so accounting for quality and taste is not as straightforward as applying that to Fuse. Personally I think this is another example of a big publisher investing a lot into a project and seeing it out the door as quickly as possible to die with little marketing push or enthusiasm from their end. This is a game where only the best buzz from reviews would have made a difference but without it and a proper ad campaign, it sort of just limply falls onto the charts.

Then again, games that for all intents and purposes deserve better can sell abysmally. Shadows of the Damned did sell about 50,000+ copies didn't it?

#54 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3657 posts) -

@joeyravn said:

@razielcuts said:

Not to be pedantic but 'a couple of hundred' is 2 x 100 = 200, not +.

I don't know if English is your mother language, but "a couple of" may be both "literally two instances of the same item" or, informally, "a few indeterminate instances of the same item". So when you say "a couple of hundred units", you may be saying that "it literally sold 200 units" or that "it sold a few hundred units". If you don't believe me, trust xkcd. Or, you know, the Collins English Dictionary. Or Wiktionary.

Ahem. English speaker, from the UK, London to be precise. I don't get why you felt the need to get in my face about semantics (especially when you're wrong) but let me school you on a few terminologies spoken here (as the guy quoted here is from Wales, UK) -

  • Couple - Two
  • Few - Three
  • Handful - Five (Five fingers on a hand you see)
  • Several - Seven and above.

'Couple' said in this context is a rough guesstimation and is around (above or below) the 200 copies mark. Now, believe me and do yourself a favour and play 'smart guy' somewhere else.

No, he's right, but he's still wrong. I looked it up myself. Couple can mean:

1) Two items of the same kind

2) And indefinite small number

I say he's right, but he still is wrong, because anyone who uses couple and doesn't mean two should be slapped in the face.

@spaceinsomniac said:

@abendlaender said:

So he is speculating "a couple of hundreds" and you turn that into "200 at most".

Couple = 2

Hundred = 100

2 + 100 = The game clearly has sold exactly 102 copies in the UK. Math doesn't lie!

Seriously though, a new game hitting the charts at 37 sounds really awful.

Not to be pedantic but 'a couple of hundred' is 2 x 100 = 200, not +.

There's nothing pedantic about explaining that. It is known to everyone in this thread, including myself, as my post was intended to be humorous. That's why I said something stupid, then said math doesn't lie, and then said "seriously though."

Pedantic refers to a focus on detail, but more specifically it refers to a focus on details that aren't understood by many people. It's a lot like "esoteric" in that sense.

#55 Posted by Hunter5024 (5617 posts) -

@razielcuts said:

@joeyravn said:

@razielcuts said:

Not to be pedantic but 'a couple of hundred' is 2 x 100 = 200, not +.

I don't know if English is your mother language, but "a couple of" may be both "literally two instances of the same item" or, informally, "a few indeterminate instances of the same item". So when you say "a couple of hundred units", you may be saying that "it literally sold 200 units" or that "it sold a few hundred units". If you don't believe me, trust xkcd. Or, you know, the Collins English Dictionary. Or Wiktionary.

Ahem. English speaker, from the UK, London to be precise. I don't get why you felt the need to get in my face about semantics (especially when you're wrong) but let me school you on a few terminologies spoken here (as the guy quoted here is from Wales, UK) -

  • Couple - Two
  • Few - Three
  • Handful - Five (Five fingers on a hand you see)
  • Several - Seven and above.

'Couple' said in this context is a rough guesstimation and is around (above or below) the 200 copies mark. Now, believe me and do yourself a favour and play 'smart guy' somewhere else.

Regardless of the country of origin, every dictionary you can find will tell you the same thing. A "couple" can mean exactly 2, or a small number of the same thing. Here's Cambridge's definition. Also because he was guessing about a number, it makes more sense that he was using the latter definition.

#56 Posted by KittyVonDoom (445 posts) -

That'll teach those jerks for making a competent third-person action shooter.

#58 Edited by Nardak (474 posts) -

It is a bit hard to believe that a newly released game sells only 200 copies in UK.

Besides the guy seems to be speculating.

Maybe he meant 200k.

#59 Edited by EternalVigil (239 posts) -

Whether it be 200 or 200k copies, entering at 37 of the chart at this time of year is pretty grim no matter how you try to spin it. I feared that this was a game had sent out to die silently, as they have done very little promotion for it and it appears that may well be the case.

#60 Edited by Grillbar (1814 posts) -

i could not stop reading the quoted part as if it was some pop chart on a bad radio station

So he is speculating "a couple of hundreds" and you turn that into "200 at most".

If the Top 10 however are just about 5000 sales it's not even tanking (well...it is of course) but what's going on in the UK? Nobody's buying games any more? Don't tell me it's because nothing coming out, cause well....there are a bunch of new games, right?

well to be fair tomb raider was placed nr 10 with x amount of copies sold in that specific week, but that was also released about 3 months ago. now fuse is brand spanking new and usually its should sell the best in the first couple of week and then maybe trickle down slowly.
so if its selling this bad, it cant be a good sign for the rest of its normal shelf life.
is what i saying making any sense, hopefully you can see the point im trying to make

#61 Edited by 5Figh (172 posts) -

no way, no waaaay, 200 is fuckin crazy low

#62 Edited by MariachiMacabre (7077 posts) -

That'll teach those jerks for making a competent third-person action shooter.

Competent doesn't cut it. Especially when compared to Insomniac's past work with the Ratchet series.

#63 Posted by gaminghooligan (1435 posts) -

Now I'm a little worried for Last of Us and Remember Me.... Fuse wasn't that bad, and I can see selling a good amount of copies easily within the first week when I worked at a game store.

#64 Edited by dagas (2813 posts) -

I rarely buy full price games. About onme every six months. Otherwise I buy games on sale. I am not surprised games are not selling well since there are so many games already for current systems and what is the point of another generic shooter, especially since graphics and game design have barely improved over the last 5 years on consoles. At least when it comes to shooters. One of the few genres that actually have seen innovation in the last few years is RPG's, especially western RPG's. But not everyone is happy with how Fallout, Dragon Age or Mass Effect have changed to become more action oriented.

#65 Edited by Eaxis (912 posts) -

@awesomeusername:

@eaxis said:

Lot's of Ea partner titles has sold poorly. Shadows of the damned deserved better, I hope Remember Me which isn't so generic can sell better.

Capcom is publishing Remember Me

I know, just mentioned it since it's a new IP releasing in close proximity to Fuse.

#66 Posted by WinterSnowblind (7615 posts) -

@nardak said:

It is a bit hard to believe that a newly released game sells only 200 copies in UK.

Besides the guy seems to be speculating.

Maybe he meant 200k.

200,000 for the UK alone would be very good sales figures for the first week and would certainly place it higher than 37th in the charts.

He could have meant 2000, but even that would be abysmal. That said, it really doesn't surprise me. After they sucked all the personality out of the game, it was pretty obvious that it was going to bomb hard.

#67 Posted by Dacnomaniac (442 posts) -

I didn't see a single advert for this in the UK, NONE WHATSOEVER.

#68 Posted by LikeaSsur (1513 posts) -

They deserved it, for the product they put out. Hopefully this is the time people realize "Wait...all of these military shooters are the exact same thing" and Call of Duty's throne will come crashing down.

#69 Posted by JazGalaxy (1576 posts) -

@abendlaender said:

So he is speculating "a couple of hundreds" and you turn that into "200 at most".

Couple = 2

Hundred = 100

2 + 100 = The game clearly has sold exactly 102 copies in the UK. Math doesn't lie!

Seriously though, a new game hitting the charts at 37 sounds really awful.

I'm always baffled by people who literally interpret a "couple" as "two".

Yes, you're entirely right.

No, very few people literally mean "two" when they say "a couple".

And when I said "Few" right there, I didn't mean three.

#70 Edited by JohnLocke (255 posts) -

I didn't see a single advert for this in the UK, NONE WHATSOEVER.

Pretty much this. I think I saw an advert on Gamespot perhaps (or maybe Eurogamer, I can not remember now) and that is about all I have seen. I did not even know what this game was until I heard talk of it this site. It seems to be a game that has been rushed out without any media buy in within the UK so this probably explains the really low numbers. Is this game any good?

#71 Posted by Peanut (953 posts) -

I never thought Insomniac did much of worth outside of Ratchet, which they very quickly drove into the fucking ground. It doesn't surprise me that they make another average shooter that doesn't benefit from the "exclusive shooter" bump and tank.

#72 Edited by JazGalaxy (1576 posts) -

@razielcuts said:

@joeyravn said:

@razielcuts said:

Not to be pedantic but 'a couple of hundred' is 2 x 100 = 200, not +.

I don't know if English is your mother language, but "a couple of" may be both "literally two instances of the same item" or, informally, "a few indeterminate instances of the same item". So when you say "a couple of hundred units", you may be saying that "it literally sold 200 units" or that "it sold a few hundred units". If you don't believe me, trust xkcd. Or, you know, the Collins English Dictionary. Or Wiktionary.

Ahem. English speaker, from the UK, London to be precise. I don't get why you felt the need to get in my face about semantics (especially when you're wrong) but let me school you on a few terminologies spoken here (as the guy quoted here is from Wales, UK) -

  • Couple - Two
  • Few - Three
  • Handful - Five (Five fingers on a hand you see)
  • Several - Seven and above.

'Couple' said in this context is a rough guesstimation and is around (above or below) the 200 copies mark. Now, believe me and do yourself a favour and play 'smart guy' somewhere else.

Regardless of the country of origin, every dictionary you can find will tell you the same thing. A "couple" can mean exactly 2, or a small number of the same thing. Here's Cambridge's definition. Also because he was guessing about a number, it makes more sense that he was using the latter definition.

RIght.

More to the point, there are two types of words when describing numbers of things. Numbers used specifically when you know the amount, such as "The doctor says take two", and words used when one does not know the specific amount. "Here, take a couple of these".

"Where is the highway? I dunno. Drive that way a couple of blocks and you should reach it".

"I'm fat? Well, I mean, I might have gained a few pounds, but I'm still wearing the same size pants as I did in high school!"

To take the words literally is essentially to abandon the idea that people can speak on a subject without absolute certainty.

Moreover, isn't the margin of error on estimating game sales higher than 200 copies? If someone was reporting that the publisher sold EXACTLY 200 copies, why not just publish the names and addresses of the people as well?

#73 Edited by JoeyRavn (4967 posts) -

@razielcuts said:

'Couple' said in this context is a rough guesstimation and is around (above or below) the 200 copies mark. Now, believe me and do yourself a favour and play 'smart guy' somewhere else.

I guess that someone's playing the "smart guy" card wrong here, and it surely ain't me. "A couple of" can be used with either definition in mind in English. You can be as adamant as you want about if "a few" is an acceptable interpretation of the expression or not, but the fact is that it is widely used in that way, whether you like it or not. Also, please notice that I never advocated the use of both or either interpretations as "correct", but rather pointed out that, again, both can and are commonly used, and that in this case, both could fit the bill.

I provided you with three different examples in which the phrase "a couple of" is proved to have both definitions (plus the other link to another dictionary posted afterwards). If you have any proof that it, in fact, is not used as "a few" (not that it shouldn't be used that way, though), please, I would love to educate myself on the matter. Otherwise, you can stop calling names, because you're not as smart as you think, duder.

Edit: Also, your definition of "handful" is, again, too strict. Yes, it can mean "five", as in "five fingers", but it can also mean "a few". Gasp! Because, you know, you can have "a handful of grapes" and "a handful of lentils", and they are not necessary five of each. Unless, of course, your hands work in a very peculiar way.

#74 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3657 posts) -

@spaceinsomniac said:

@abendlaender said:

So he is speculating "a couple of hundreds" and you turn that into "200 at most".

Couple = 2

Hundred = 100

2 + 100 = The game clearly has sold exactly 102 copies in the UK. Math doesn't lie!

Seriously though, a new game hitting the charts at 37 sounds really awful.

I'm always baffled by people who literally interpret a "couple" as "two".

Yes, you're entirely right.

No, very few people literally mean "two" when they say "a couple".

And when I said "Few" right there, I didn't mean three.

I'm always baffled by people who don't use "couple" when they mean two, "few" when they mean three, and "several" when they mean four or more.

Perhaps it's a regional thing.

#75 Posted by dskillzhtown (31 posts) -

Insomniac deserve better but I personally love it when EA tries something and fails. This pleases me..

I really don't get this attitude at all. So you want to see EA fail and people lose jobs? You want to see one of the giants in the gaming industry fail? Do you have any idea what the industry-wide ramifications of that would be? If mighty EA fails, then what does that say for every other company out there? You may not like some business practices and hope they change, but to wish for a company to fail is pretty short-sighted. As someone who lost a job because of issues at the top of a company, it is kind of a sore point for anyone to wish that on anyone else.

#76 Edited by JouselDelka (967 posts) -

@jouseldelka said:

Insomniac deserve better but I personally love it when EA tries something and fails. This pleases me..

I really don't get this attitude at all. So you want to see EA fail and people lose jobs? You want to see one of the giants in the gaming industry fail? Do you have any idea what the industry-wide ramifications of that would be? If mighty EA fails, then what does that say for every other company out there? You may not like some business practices and hope they change, but to wish for a company to fail is pretty short-sighted. As someone who lost a job because of issues at the top of a company, it is kind of a sore point for anyone to wish that on anyone else.

First of all, let's get the whole 'losing jobs' part out of the equation. People lose jobs all the time in every field around the world, and they find jobs afterwards almost always if they're qualified. I've lost jobs, many people I know did, everyone around the world does, there's nothing tragic about it. Yes, it sucks, it means you suffer trying to pay the bills for a few months, but I'm not a fan of how us game fans always make it sound like people straight up died whenever there's a firing. So what if they get fired? They start sending out resumes, that's how the world works.

I'm sorry you lost that job, I lost mine three weeks ago. I've already had some interviews and hope to get back on the money train soon, and I hope the same to you.

Now about EA: It pleases me when EA pump out what according to my personal standards are "bad" games, and fail to make the cash they set out to make. A lot of people will disagree with me on how almost every game EA invests in nowadays, is a brilliant IP with potential that was half-assed and designed to make money, not to provide great experiences for the player. It is my personal opinion that that company is ruining the integrity and soul of this industry.

However a lot of people will agree with me that this game looked very promising at the start and now it's been EA'fied. That's the whole point: EA-fication failing = pleasure.

And when it comes to a giant failing, well that has always been interesting to see, good fresh things always come from big monopolizing dirty corporations crashing down. If EA goes belly up, that opens up a whole new level of opportunities for both competitors and people working under EA who wish they could have more artistic freedom in their products.

Even if I'm wrong since I'm not a business expert, I still think it's justified to enjoy seeing someone fail when they try to rip people off and lower the standards of game design.

#77 Edited by Turtlebird95 (2363 posts) -

I would have gave it a chance had it not been changed into such a generic snorefest. Damn you EA.

I hope Insomniac's next project (Safe to assume Fuse 2 isn't happening anymore) is more unique and interesting.

#78 Edited by ImmortalSaiyan (4676 posts) -

Frankly this is a positive thing.

#79 Edited by Nights (611 posts) -

I'm glad all of that focus testing payed off!

#80 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3657 posts) -

@nights said:

I'm glad all of that focus testing payed off!

Fuse is the Poochie of video games.

#81 Posted by sirdesmond (1235 posts) -

Yeesh, debuting at 37 for the week is super harsh. It could have stood out with the original art style (and a bit more craziness to it) but it's just so bland now that this isn't that surprising really.

#82 Posted by BisonHero (6446 posts) -

Holy fuck, how are half the posts in this thread about the meaning of "couple"?

#83 Edited by deerokus (540 posts) -

Yeah Fuse has had no marketing whatsoever in the UK, you would only know about it over here if you're the kind of video game fan who reads American websites like this one. And guess what, all of those people know about the focus crap rubbish. Also, if you've never heard of it and walk into a branch of Game to see if anything new is out, the box doesn't really scream 'quality product'. It's still quite amazing to only come 37th in a week when gaming sales are about as low as you can ever expect (rare sunny weather into the bargain).

I do think the market for the big budget style of video game in general is getting smaller (at least at the £40-£45 release price), so many of these games are released to miserable sales.

Finally, Pachter said this would sell 5m copies. HA!

#84 Edited by jsnyder82 (730 posts) -

Thanks, focus groups!

Also, how in the hell do people not know that couple = 2? A few might not always mean 3, but a couple always means 2.

#85 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3657 posts) -

Thanks, focus groups!

Also, how in the hell do people not know that couple = 2? A few might not always mean 3, but a couple always means 2.

I felt the same way, but look at a dictionary. It's right there. That doesn't change the simple fact that all the dictionaries are wrong, though.

#86 Posted by Korolev (1703 posts) -

Not too surprising. The game did not receive a great deal of marketing, and the studio behind it didn't seem too happy with what it made. Somewhere along the line the publisher and the developer kind of knew it wouldn't be a big success, and so they just let it out quietly, hoping that it would at least recover a bit of the cost that went into developing it.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.