Halo: Reach "biggest" MS game ever

By Wesley Yin-Poole Published 17 September, 2010

Bigger than all the Halos, GOWs and Fables.

Bungie's Halo: Reach has achieved the astonishing feat of becoming the biggest game Microsoft has ever released.

The sales success means Reach is bigger than Microsoft's record-breaker Halo 3.

Microsoft Game Studios boss Phil Spencer had already revealed the science fiction shooter generated $200 million in the first 24 hours of release in the US and Europe.

And we know Reach is the biggest US entertainment launch of 2010, beating the three-day opening weekends of films Iron Man 2, Alice in Wonderland and Toy Story 3 in a single day.

But this latest revelation puts Reach ahead of all other MGS-published games, including all the Halos, Fables, Gears of Wars and Forzas ever released.

"Halo: Reach is the biggest game Microsoft has ever released, and its launch has already surpassed every game, movie and entertainment launch this year," said Spencer.

"Every major instalment has grown in scope and popularity, firmly cementing the Halo franchise as one of the most popular entertainment properties in the world over the past decade."

Spencer's comments mean Reach is "bigger" than Halo 3, which broke sales records on its September 2007 release.

Of course other games have had better day one sales, including Activision's Modern Warfare 2 and Rockstar's Grand Theft Auto 4. But they were available for both the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3.

Last week Microsoft told Eurogamer that Halo: Reach would outsell sure to be mega shooter Call of Duty: Black Ops, due out later this year.

To date, more than 34 million copies of Halo games have been sold worldwide, driving more than 3.3 billion hours of gameplay by people connected to Xbox Live.

Read our verdict over at Eurogamer's Halo: Reach review.

Picture of Wesley.

About Wesley Yin-Poole

Wesley is Eurogamer's news editor. He likes news, interviews, and more news. He also likes Street Fighter more than anyone can get him to shut up about it.

Read more articles from Wesley by visiting the Wesley Yin-Poole archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (63) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • coolbritannia #1 2 years ago

    And rightly so.

  • Doctor_What #2 2 years ago

    Would this be the game to convert me into a Halo fan, or if I played it would I be similarly 'meh' as I was with the other ones?

  • kangarootoo #3 2 years ago

    I hope the devs get decent royalties. They should be able to retire on that sort of revenue.

  • nuanimal #4 2 years ago

    Bigger than Halo.

  • kangarootoo #5 2 years ago

    @Mercatoria

    You don't understand, or you don't like it?

    Films may "do more business", but this article is about revenue. Halo Reach has generated more revenue in its opening weekend than the films mentioned, that is just fact.

    It sort of feels like you are trying to dismiss the success of Halo Reach by selectively measuring it in ways that reduce its performance. Why would that be?

  • Raznilof #6 2 years ago

    Deservingly so, their first true system seller.

    @doctor_what, it depends if you like a true skill based enemy, which behaves and acts like real humans do. Just don't play this game on normal as you'll blast through it. Story is fantastic (only there to get you from a to b which is enough).

    Epic is an overused term, but it really applies here, you'll see and experience things that only games can bring.

    Loving every second of it.

    ps. the argument that it is more of the same is about as moot as complaining about a football game always having the same two sides, a ball and 90 minutes of playtime. Halo has not changed in the same way the football game hasn't changed. But still, there are good matches and there are boring ones. If Halo (1) was the first match of the season of your favourite team, then Reach sees them playing in the finals. Halo 2 and 3 where boring to me, ODST was interesting again (more of a challenge, less of the convoluted story) but it didn't have the epic set pieces (for that time) of the first one.

    edit: typos and added football analogy
    Edited by Raznilof at 17/09/10 @ 12:02

  • stevethemeat #7 2 years ago

    Excellent game, both the campaign and the multiplayer, the argument between the cost of a game and the cost of going to the cinema is pointless, it may only cost between £7-£9 to watch a movie, but i bet the ratio of people who went to see Iron Man 2 to those who bought Reach is easily 4:1.

    Also for me £35-£40 for Reach, given the amount of time i will spend on it represents better value than paying £7-£9 to go to the cinema.

  • BBIAJ #8 2 years ago

    They should do an HD re-release of Halo: Combat Evolved, and Halo 2 as a collection, similar to the God of War, Sly Racoon, and ICO/Shadow of the Colossus games to celebrate, thus ensuring the franchises legacy for both gamers and years to come, and allowing them to be played over Xbox LIVE once again.

    Maybe even throw in co-op over LIVE for the first game, and LIVE multiplayer too.

    Surely if Microsoft own the IP, this could still happen, even though Bungie are now with Activision?

    Personally, I'd entrust it to Gearbox Software myself.

  • evilbert #9 2 years ago

    @Doctor What - it's very good, if you like the other Halo games. If you didn't, I'm not sure if you will like this one either. IMO, it's better than the others but it's still very similar to them.

    @ Haloboy! - What?

  • Yuroko #10 2 years ago

    I'm currently loving Reach. Halo 2, 3 and odst were a bit boring in my eyes. Reach reminds me why I loved combat evolved so much. The level design is Bungie's best work to date and the graphics are excellent, even if the frame rate does dip on the odd occasion. Just waiting for my cheap arse mates to buy it so we can play co-op, which makes the game about 10x's more fun.

  • Gambit1977 #11 2 years ago

    I don't see how they can compare it with movie releases. Limited seats, travel involved etc, cinema is an event...not a passtime at home. Maybe I'm being too single minded.

  • stevethemeat #12 2 years ago

    @BBIAJ. My friends and i were talking about this the other day, even if they do not release them on disc they could do it over XBLA, i have always wanted the original Halo and Halo 2 maps updated in HD.

  • iamian #13 2 years ago

    @Haloboy! pretty poor analagy.

    So if you bought a pair of Nike trainers what, 7 years ago, you would complain that when Nike bring out a new pair of trainers you wouldn't buy them because the pair you bought 7 years smell and are a bit uncomfortable?

  • GiarcYekrub #14 2 years ago

    Erm I brought it, its not that big completed it in 7Hours and I'm crap and had to restart loads

  • Mercatoria #15 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    I'm not dismissing the business reach has done. Reach was compared to other games which is fair enough and makes sense.
    As I siad I dont understand why games feel the need to compare themselves to movies. Its not a logical leap.

    I dont think I've ever seen a movie release compare itself to a game.

    Tshirt makers dont compare their sales to trainers. Its unnecessary and in my view means nothing.

    I'm not questioning the numbers. I'm questioning the reason behind the need to compare itself to movies. Its like the games industry constantly needs to validate itself.

  • Raznilof #16 2 years ago

    @BBIAJ That's exactly how I'd imagine to get 343 Industries up to speed (the Microsoft company that has inherited the halo franchise).

  • richarddavies #17 2 years ago

    I really want to know how many copies this has actually sold.

  • roquey Verified Lead Quality Assurance Tester and Compliance Specialist, Universally Speaking #18 2 years ago

    They should do an HD re-release of Halo: Combat Evolved, and Halo 2 as a collection, similar to the God of War, Sly Racoon, and ICO/Shadow of the Colossus games to celebrate, thus ensuring the franchises legacy for both gamers and years to come, and allowing them to be played over Xbox LIVE once again.

    Maybe even throw in co-op over LIVE for the first game, and LIVE multiplayer too.

    Surely if Microsoft own the IP, this could still happen, even though Bungie are now with Activision?

    Personally, I'd entrust it to Gearbox Software myself.


    The Way Gearbox are going they seem to be one of the best devs at the moment.

  • Dizzy #19 2 years ago

    "Surely if Microsoft own the IP, this could still happen, even though Bungie are now with Activision?"

    Yes this could happen... but I think MS prefers to focus on new stuff instead of recycling old glory.

    >I really want to know how many copies this has actually sold.

    46463 gazillion
    Edited by Dizzy at 17/09/10 @ 12:07

  • stevethemeat #20 2 years ago

    Did you enjoy the 7 hours you spent on it? £40 for 7 hours of enjoyment plus endless fun in multiplayer if you enjoy it, £9 for 2 hours of enjoyment going to the cinema, works out around even if you have no intention of playing online.

    A lot of enjoyment in this post
    Edited by stevethemeat at 17/09/10 @ 12:09

  • MightyMouse #21 2 years ago

    Firstly well done Bungie. Secondly, of course it's going to be the biggest - unless you massively cock up your previous game then increased install base combined with increased marketing pretty much guarantees that it'd be bigger than halo 3. It's a good game in my view, but not the revolution that 1 or 3 were.

  • arcam #22 2 years ago

    I wonder which of their games has the biggest ever marketing budget.

  • Nephirion #23 2 years ago

    I think Gears of War 3 will come close next year, it's funny people were being turned away due to the age rating which I was suprised to see set at 16+?

  • stevethemeat #24 2 years ago

    @Watkins381: Yes but a lot more people went to watch Iron Man 2 than bought Halo Reach, films are universally more popular with people of all ages than games. Why do some people not want certain games to sell well, its good for the whole industry if it pulls in new customers.

    Enough perspective for you?
    Edited by stevethemeat at 17/09/10 @ 12:32

  • chrisjm #25 2 years ago

    'Its like the games industry constantly needs to validate itself. '

    until it gets equal mainstream tv & media coverage that will continue.

  • coolbritannia #26 2 years ago

    I'm not sure how anyone could really only play 7 hours of campaign. For starters it's a different game depending what difficulty you have it on, and even if you're like me and don't really enjoy competitive multiplayer that much there's still firefight, both offline and on, and versus generator defence with mates, and tbh the versus mode is vastly improved, i actually enjoyed it...

  • arcam #27 2 years ago

    until it gets equal mainstream tv & media coverage that will continue.

    Those dinosaurs? TV and newspapers as we know them will be gone before gaming has shaken off its stigma.

  • Lord_Gremlin #28 2 years ago

    The problem with Reach is that it's just more of Halo 3. I know this game rely on multiplayer, but still!

  • xentar #29 2 years ago

    I didnt like previous Halo games much but I love Reach, it plays great. Rhe addition of a team of AI soldoers makes it more alive for me

  • Quak #30 2 years ago

    Why are we comparing games to cinema? There's around 400% price difference. I bet Audi made more on their new Audi TT on the first day than MS did on selling Halo Reach as well, but no-one makes this comparison because it's totally irrelevant.

    It's also a no-brainer that the game would sell more than Halo 3 - more people own 360s today than they did back when Halo 3 came out.

    In other news, water is found to be wet and impossible to push up hill.

  • paulf #31 2 years ago

    imagine how well it would have done if they had spent a fortune on marketing

  • Fab4 #32 2 years ago

    “The bigger they are, the worse they smell” - George Carlin ;)

  • BoffBoff #33 2 years ago

    @Quak: Well not quite - films and games are both in the entertainment industry.

    I'm pretty sure the comparison is made to highlight how well the game (or just gaming in general) does, considering EVERYONE (gamers and non-gamers alike) knows Hollywood is a big-budget, multi-million dollar business.

    That's my opinion anyway.

    Edit: Beaten to it.
    Edited by BoffBoff at 17/09/10 @ 12:58

  • GiarcYekrub #34 2 years ago

    @stevethemeat not really the Sabre level was the only highlight and I don't play multiplayer

  • coolbritannia #35 2 years ago

    Yes, they're afraid of how awesome Halo 4 has to be to beat Reach now the bar has been set so high.

  • stevethemeat #36 2 years ago

    @stevethemeat not really the Sabre level was the only highlight and I don't play multiplayer

    Fair enough then mate.

  • muscleblade #37 2 years ago

    "I didnt like previous Halo games much but I love Reach, it plays great. Rhe addition of a team of AI soldoers makes it more alive for me"

    The addition of three human (friends) players made Halo 3 more alive for me.

    Reach is even better though i agree on that. Since they included an achivement for playing solo ive experienced the AI team members and they do help a lot and that isnt the case in any other games with AI coop partners ive played.

  • BobsUncle #38 2 years ago

    It's funny, I was playing firefight last night with my friends, and I suddenly thought I should stick nearby them so I can do a revive if they go down, then I realised it wasn't Bad Company 2.
    So I pulled the left trigger to use accurate aiming, but realised it wasn't every other shooter that uses the now familiar and pretty much standard mechanic.
    Then, after shooting an enemy in the head several times only to have him run off and re-charge his shields, I remembered why I don't like Halo's bullet-sponge multiplayer very much.

    I've not bothered with MP against humans, I don't think I could stand the bunny-hopping melee fest.

    Playing Reach is like a trip back in time, but with nicer graphics. Dice and Infinity Ward have moved things on since Halo 2, but I think Bungie are too arrogant to admit it.

    It's weird, I love the concept of Halo, the universe, story and characters, I even started re-reading The Fall Of Reach again after completing this at the weekend, but all the games have always seemed quite average.

  • kangarootoo #39 2 years ago

    @Mercatoria

    Well ok, sorry to jump on you a bit.

    People just like comparing numbers. Its a way of giving context, especially when people aren't familiar wirth the subject matter.

    "Halo Reach took 200m on launch weekend" might have some people asking "is that a lot, or a little?". Saying "its more than Iron Man 2" gives some context. Now I realise of course, the commenter in question is a MS person and so has a motive to brag.


    "Its like the games industry constantly needs to validate itself."

    Well I'm afraid the truth is that in many ways it does. Non-gamers are often surprised to learn that games make more money than films, and occasionally cost more money to make in the first place. From public acceptance, to tax breaks, to gaining investment, anything that makes the games business seem more grown up and serious is a good thing. Films were once viewed in the same light, but now they are established and accepted, so the comparisons make a lot of sense in that regard.

  • Teamallstar #40 2 years ago

    Reach will never out sell COD Black Ops!!!

    There are too many Sun and Daily Mail reading Andy Mcnab wannabe retards who will buy the souless COD Black Ops as their only game of the year.

    Microsoft would need to throw in some cockney slang, a few football references and a lead character called "Gazz" or "Trev" in order to come close to the same sales as COD.

  • kangarootoo #41 2 years ago

    "water is... impossible to push up hill"

    I'm pretty sure that isn't true.

  • chuck_bone #42 2 years ago

    Hmm, in the last 12 months, AVatar took $236million at the box office over it's opening weekend, and went on to make well over $2.7billion. It's DVD/Blu-Ray release, just in the US sold $130 million, and that is not taking into account the international sales.

    A game costs $60 or so per copy - a movie $9-12.

    It always makes me laugh when PR people compare chalk and cheese and hope it make sthem look special.

    Sources;
    [link url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8643539.stm
    ]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8643539.stm
    [/link]
    [link url=http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2021595320091220
    ]http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2021...[/link]
    [link url=http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=avatar.htm
    ]http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=avat...[/link]

    I'm also pretty sure Mario, Gran Tourismo, Final Fantasy, Zelda, and all these Zynga Facebook games do sell a tad more in numbers too.

    Not saying its rubbish, just that MS are in full PR swing today, and typically loaded with cow dung.
    Edited by chuck_bone at 17/09/10 @ 14:06

  • coolbritannia #43 2 years ago

    @Bobsuncle, that's the point. You can't potshot shielded enemies unless you have teh snipe. Halo is a lot more difficult than those other games, you need to think about what you're doing right now, where your enemy may go, and how you counter his defences (no point popping a few pistol rounds in an Elite if he's surrounded by cover unless you can follow it up with a 'nade).

  • SlackMaster #44 2 years ago

    @Doctor_What - If your anything like me, I loved the original Halo, but found 2, and 3 dissapointing. I liked ODST a lot more than Halo 2 and 3 where others thought it was a bit slow.

    Halo Reach to me reminded me much more of the original game. Epic set pieces, great story, smooth controls, fun combat and great enemy AI. If you've not been a fan of reloading using the trigger buttons then you'll prefer the control scheme in Reach as it's similar to the original Halo scheme.

    The new game engine is great also. The way Elites and Jackals move now is a lot more fluid and realistic. They will dodge, roll and hide to evade your gun fire. Jackals are also very fast and there are a lot of variations on the traditional enemies. Elites are back and a lot more enjoyable to fight than Brutes.

    If you enjoyed the original Halo and/or ODST then get this game as IMO it's the best FPS available.

  • geeza2020 #45 2 years ago

    I'm sure this is selling really well, but i think for the first time i can remember since the series started, literally nobody i know owns Halo: Reach. There just doesn't seem to be that much interest in my social circle. Me and my mates must be turning into old fogies or something now :(

    (Personally I had enough of halo after the third game, this seems more of the same to me, but if thats what people want, go for it)

  • Quixz #46 2 years ago

    I'm currently on the 8th mission, this game has been kicking my ass!

  • BobsUncle #47 2 years ago

    @coolbritannia

    It was hardly pot-shotting. I was doing several headshots in succession with the DMR.

    I'd hardly call Halo "Harder" than other MP games just because you have to pump more rounds into your target. It also means you can take more damage before getting killed, unlike something like GRAW, BC2 or MW where you have to be certain that if you shoot at your target you're going to hit them, otherwise you're just giving your position away and inviting death.

  • coolbritannia #48 2 years ago

    Geeza, same here, no idea why anyone negged you for saying that. Best game I may have ever played, but try convincing my COD lovin' buddies of that...

  • Ace_McCloud #49 2 years ago

    "SlackMaster:

    @Doctor_What - If your anything like me, I loved the original Halo, but found 2, and 3 dissapointing. I liked ODST a lot more than Halo 2 and 3 where others thought it was a bit slow.

    Halo Reach to me reminded me much more of the original game. Epic set pieces, great story, smooth controls, fun combat and great enemy AI. If you've not been a fan of reloading using the trigger buttons then you'll prefer the control scheme in Reach as it's similar to the original Halo scheme.

    The new game engine is great also. The way Elites and Jackals move now is a lot more fluid and realistic. They will dodge, roll and hide to evade your gun fire. Jackals are also very fast and there are a lot of variations on the traditional enemies. Elites are back and a lot more enjoyable to fight than Brutes.

    If you enjoyed the original Halo and/or ODST then get this game as IMO it's the best FPS available. "

    Bang on.

  • Emmit_Assassin #50 2 years ago

    @Doctor_What -

    It converted me. I hated Halo 3 and ODST, didn't mind the first Halo, but got bored with Halo 2. I only bought it as I knew that if I didn't like it, ebay would get me my money back in a few days.
    Now I'm going to keep it. The MP is still a minefield of expert snipers who get headshots every single time, but if you find some like minded/ability/skilled people online, its such a fun game to play. And with so many modes and customisation options for games, there's something for everyone, including previous Halo-haters like myself.

  • abot #51 2 years ago

    I think there is a real possibility that Reach can outsell BlackOps on the 360.

    I believe that when the MS executive said that Reach will outsell BlackOps he was referring to the 360 not overall. Obviously BlackOps will outsell Reach because its multi-platform. The executive at MS would have to be an idiot to think that Reach will outsell BlackOps overall when Reach is only on the 360.

  • GamesConnoisseur #52 2 years ago

    Comparing blockbusters games ie zreach, COD, Uncharted 3 with Avatar 2, Batman 3 are just a good way of making gaming more seen as a serious medium. However if it's come from MS, Sony or Acti etc as obvious self serving motives.

    As for Reach, disappointed with ODST, enjoyed 3 but Reach outshines them in all critical areas and deserving of success but people who hates franchise or just cos it's MS/X360 whichever way won't be converted.

    Also fair enough there are those who prefers real world based COD/Battlefield to Halo Sci Fi, but surely you ll hope for useful lessons to be emulated or imaged? Ie Forge mode, Theatre, match making etc!

  • GamesConnoisseur #53 2 years ago

    Comparing blockbusters games ie zreach, COD, Uncharted 3 with Avatar 2, Batman 3 are just a good way of making gaming more seen as a serious medium. However if it's come from MS, Sony or Acti etc as obvious self serving motives.

    As for Reach, disappointed with ODST, enjoyed 3 but Reach outshines them in all critical areas and deserving of success but people who hates franchise or just cos it's MS/X360 whichever way won't be converted.

    Also fair enough there are those who prefers real world based COD/Battlefield to Halo Sci Fi, but surely you ll hope for useful lessons to be emulated or imaged? Ie Forge mode, Theatre, match making etc!

  • darkmorgado #54 2 years ago

    Films do a lot more business then games

    Actually the games industry generates a lot more revenue than cinema. We overtook the film industry a few years ago.

  • chuck_bone #55 2 years ago

    @darkmorgado

    In terms of numbers of people buying product? I doubt it. Movies have a far broader reach. In terms of profitability? Again, I doubt it. Games are rivalling movies in terms of production costs these days, even exceeding them ( I bet GT5 took hundreds of millions to develop).

    Movies are not jus the Cinematic release - DVD, TV rights, VOD, and so forth. Avatar has made well over $3billion worldwide for both Cinematic and Home releases, and that's us the tip of the iceberg. Harry Potter, Batman: Dark Knight, and so on - all turn huge profits.

    The movie industry made $10billion in 2009, compared to thegames industry which made around $20billion.
    But that figure includes hardware, and comparing a movie that sells at $9/£9 a pop (Half that on Orange Wednesdays!) to a games system that costs $300+ is not exactly a fare comparison.

    The movie industry is considerably more profitable, just ask Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft, that barely scrape by (most recently anyway).

    [link url=http://www.the-numbers.com/market/
    ]http://www.the-numbers.com/market/
    [/link]
    [link url=http://www.industrygamers.com/news/npd-video-game-and-pc-game-industry-totals-202-billion-in-09/
    ]http://www.industrygamers.com/news/npd-v...[/link]

  • oerhoert #56 2 years ago

    All I can see is hype and repeating of Microsoft's PR line. How about some investigative journalism?

    "And we know Reach is the biggest US entertainment launch of 2010, beating the three-day opening weekends of films Iron Man 2, Alice in Wonderland and Toy Story 3 in a single day."

    Says who? MS? Why is opening-day game sales comparable to movie tickets? How does sales taper over time compared to movies? How many people will play the game vs. see the movies? Why aren't these questions asked by the writer?

    Assuming that the units went by 60 dollars, which is conservative since some were probably Limited Editions, $200 million equals about 3.3 million games sold. That's good, but it's hardly as awe-inspiring as the article makes it out to be. Toy Story 3 did about 4 million tickets in the US on opening night, 2 million in the UK, and probably some millions elsewhere which should mean about 8-10 million people went to the cinema to see it the day it came out. With this in mind, Halo: Reach looks quite different, although it is obviously still a great success.
    Edited by oerhoert at 17/09/10 @ 20:32

  • Simonkey75 #57 2 years ago

    I'm not surprised it's done so well. I did a guide for a website (you can read it here if anyone's interested: <a href=”http://www.brighthub.com/video-games/console/articles/87383.aspx”>Halo: Reach Multiplayer Guide</a>;), and to be honest I wasn't particularly looking forward to it, having burnt myself out on Halo 3, but the Campaign is excellent, and the new stuff like the Armor Abilities and game modes have really freshened up and reinvigorated Halo for me.

    Good on Bungie I say.

  • Grayvern #58 2 years ago

    From the comments I'm getting the impression that the campaign is a return to the goodness of Halo 1.

    But then again 3 had the terrible flood section that ruined the campaign, so the campaign of reach being better than 3 is entirely relative.

    I'm really on the fence now.

    PS it doesn't have any really annoying precision Jackal parts like 2 does it?

  • icelt #59 2 years ago

    I watched a friend play it for a couple of hours and I have to admit, just like the others in the series, I simply do not get the fascination.

    I do think the "films" feature should be mandatory on every other serious FPS (looks disappointingly at MW2, BC2 & likely BO).
    Edited by icelt at 18/09/10 @ 02:24

  • Turbotim3 #60 2 years ago

    Meh, I play shooters but have never been interested in halo and even the hype machine won't get me to play

  • NewbieZilla #61 2 years ago

    "I'm not questioning the numbers. I'm questioning the reason behind the need to compare itself to movies. Its like the games industry constantly needs to validate itself."

    It's simple really. A movie gets huge numbers, lots of people say "I need to see that." A game getting such numbers will get a lot of "Me too" type people who wouldn't normally buy the game but will go with what is popular. So, yes, the reason behind this is apparent. Don't see how it could not be.

  • witchdrash #62 2 years ago

    @chuck_bone it's actually totally fair. Games/Movies etc all fall into the same market, entertainment, they have different price points, but that's simply based on maximizing revenue, which is the important figure, not total sales, boasting about total sales is the marketing department jerking off, they could sell 40 billion and still make a loss at the wrong price point, conversely they could sell 1 and make buckets of cash at the other extreme. Very few people would ever go and see a movie if it cost £35 to get, they're happy to pay £35 to buy a game, games are targeting a more selective market than movies, which are based on bums-on-seats policy to maximize their revenue. So the total revenue is fair, MS sold less copies of Reach than Alice in Wonderland sold tickets, MS however still has more money in the bank at the end of the day and it's that figure not total sales that's important.

  • kangarootoo #63 2 years ago

    @chuck_bone

    What is this obsession with selectively discounting parts of an industry when comparing it. Games as a business is bigger than film, fact. Saying "that is only because of hardware" etc is irrelevant. If that is one of the reasons games is bigger, that doesn't change anything - indeed it supports the fact- as you say, it is one of the very reasons.

    You say it isn't a fair comparison, but what has fair to do with it? It's not a competition, we shouldn't start excluding parts of the business just to make films "feel better". To say "games as a business is bigger than film, unless you ignore bit parts of the games business, in which case it isn't" simply makes no sense.