Talk:Killer game

message: I think much of this information could be placed in the context of the killer application article.  Having both seems rather redundant.  You could keep the same information but just seperate the Killer Application article more to discuss video games as well.  Berenlazarus
I disagree, both articles carry information for beyond the realm of the other, to combine them would cause confusion to those not familiar with videogames. And this being a reference material things should be as clear cut as possible. Killer game will be a constantly expanded article due to the continuing release of videogame hardware while killer app will be relatively static as it is a description of a general phenomenon. Solidusspriggan 08:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I definitely agree.  Please do not post games just because they are very popular.  Killer games MUST have a large impact on SYSTEM SALES.  For the PS2, Final Fantasy and GTA clearly have, but the others, I just don't believe so. --Locarno 15:15, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with both of you. --MadMoses 09:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, but would hundreds of thousands feel the same?  I don't think RE4 is going to drive many sales.  However, if it turns out to do so in the next year or so, then we can add it.  We can't speculate that it will or won't at this point, it was just released a few months ago.  If there's a big spike in Nintendo GameCube sales, then we can search for a potential killer game that caused it.  No spike, no killer game.  --Locarno 22:19, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

message: Look - it's really hard to determine what ACTUALLY makes a game "killer". I added that warning to the FF7 section because it simply smelled fallacious. Just because sales rose for the PS and FF7 at the same period does not mean that one caused the other. Many games were released for the PS at that time, too. For us to be able to know if FF7 is a killer game FOR SURE, we would need to conduct surveying on whether or not people bought a PS mostly or solely for FF7.
However, for Mario 64 and Nintendogs, the jury is in. Being a launch title, Mario 64's popularity brought with it many console sales during the launch period. The same could be applied to Halo. And Nintendogs, despite not being a launch title, contributed to large DS sales due to a confirmed fact that many people bought a DS solely for Nintendogs. The fact that some DS units are bundled with Nintendogs only enhances this assertion.
That said, I would like to know if Mortal Kombat for the Genesis is a killer title for that console, due to Nintendo's draconian censorship policies. I've heard assertions that people bought a Genesis over the SNES solely for the uncensored version of MK, but I cannot confirm them.
: I appreciate keeping this section honest.  I've edited the section on FF7 to fit in with the article better.  I would speculate that Sonic the Hedgehog, NHL Hockey (video game), and then Mortal Kombat a few years later were killers for the Genesis; Super Mario World and Street Fighter II were killers for the SNES.  FF6 and Dragon Quest 6 were probably killers for the SNES in Japan but not the U.S.  Maybe Super Mario Bros., the Legend of Zelda, and Double Dragon for the NES?  We'd need more proof for any of these.
:: I'm not sure what I think of the revised Final Fantasy VII paragraph. It seems a little odd that we only mention correlation/causality in conjunction with that one game, and it comes across as slightly POVish, in my opinion. I think it's an important distinction to make, but I'd be more comfortable with making it as a more general point elsewhere in the article, as the same can be said about any number of games recognized as "killer," I would think. – Seancdaug 21:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Methodology questions 

message: A killer game is a game that causes a great deal of people to buy the hardware.  Many popular games are not killer, and perhaps even a non-popular game can be a killer.  Also, if sales for a console were never all that high (Saturn, 3DO, Jaguar, Dreamcast, etc) there by definition is no killer game.  --Locarno 22:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhhh, what? --Locarno 14:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

text: An online game could be considered a killer game only if it caused hardware (or service) sales.  For example, if Half-Life Counter Strike caused millions to upgrade to broadbamd, and you could give evidence that this was so, it could be considered a killer game.  --Locarno 20:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

text: You have missed the whole definition of the term, how many times does it have to be said?  POPULARITY is irrelevant when determining what is/isn't a killer game.  Social impact is irrelevant in determining what is/isn't a killer game.  A killer game, sometimes called a "system seller," is a video game which causes many to buy a particular video game console or upgrade their computer hardware simply to play such a game. --Locarno 17:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Mario 3 is not a killer game, because most who bought it already had a NES.  For the others, I'd agree, BUT WE NEED EVIDENCE.  I'm once again deleting the list--evidence or testimony that a game caused system sales is required. --Locarno 14:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Killer is NOT the same as popular 

message: There's been a rise in Nintendo DS console sales due to Nintendogs:
"This title game also boosted the Nintendo DS system sales by over 4.2 times the previous week to 95,000 units, up from 22,000 ([1]). In that one week, the DS sales were more than the combined total of PSP and PS2 sales for the month of March in Japan. These record sales were related to a combination of the release of four chart topping DS titles (three of them being the Nintendogs titles, and the other being a Naruto game that sold 87,000 units) and the release of pink and blue DS systems."
Does this qualify as a killer game? Probably could do with some sources, like a games site saying "it's a killer game" or something. --Sum0 17:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, if it is sustained for another few months, which I suspect it will. If you cite the source for your quote above, that would be an excellent quote to supply as evidence of "killer-gameness". --Locarno 15:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, well, that quote is taken directly from our own Nintendogs page, which links to . --Sum0 20:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've used the IGN article as the evidence for this example and added it to the article. --Locarno 14:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nintendogs 

message: I have no particular evidence that Halo was a killer game for Xbox, but nearly everyone I know with an Xbox got it primarily to play Halo.  Personally when I first read the definition of a killer game, Halo came to mind
: I definitely agree, and I appreciate your contribution.  I hope you can appreciate the need for evidence for each example. Go out and scour the net for some statistics that prove it, or an industry contact or journalist who said that it was a killer game or drove XBox sales.  Wikipedia will be better for it.
:: Common knowledge doesn't need a cite.  Learned that writing research papers in middle school...
::: This isn't common knowledge.  --Locarno 16:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for that useful bit of insight, grand wizard of the page. Dudewhiterussian 17:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xbox and Halo 

message: What about games that were not killer games when they were released, but because they are multiplayer and timeless classics they still sell old consoles today? 
Do they deserve killer game status?
Notice how all most SNESs sell on ebay with Mariokart? Also Goldeneye for the N64 --bitplane
: Used consoles sold would probably not be considered, because "killer game" is a marketing term and has to do with market share and the state of the industry.  Since all used consoles were once new consoles, a "used" sale does nothing to increase sales--especially for consoles where new sales have ceased.  A "used" sales only moves a console between consumers.  If Nintendo were all of a sudden start manufacturing and selling Super Mario Kart and people start buying used SNES consoles to play it, then we might have a different story. --Locarno 13:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  what about games that sell old consoles? 

message: Killer Game is a registered trademark of the company of the same name.
This San Diego game development company was started in 1996 and has published numerous sports games for the PlayStation (R) SONY and Playtation2 (R) SONY. They recently released a puzzle adventure game for the PSP called Frantix published under SOE.
:Perhaps you should start a Killer Game (with a capital G) article for that company? --Locarno 16:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Killer Game is a registered trademark 

message: There seems to be a very strong correlation between what are termed 'killer games' and the best-selling games for each console.
*NES - Super Mario Bros
*SNES - Super Mario World
*Gameboy - Tetris
*N64 - Super Mario 64
*Nintendo GameCube - Super Smash Brothers Melee
*PlayStation - Final Fantasy VII and Gran Turismo
*PlayStation 2 - Grand Theft Auto III (although this has now been surpassed by other titles in this series).
: While I haven't seen journalistic opinion or statistical evidence for most of these, it seems to be the case.  However, I would doubt the PSX and PS2: Did a lot of people by a PlayStation because of Gran Turismo?  Did a lot of people buy a PS2 because of GTA3?  Perhaps, perhaps not.  --Locarno 16:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Best-selling Games 

message: Seeing my cries for restraint in the examples section go unheeded, I have requested comment from others on this issue.  Various editors continually add examples that are of dubious legitimacy, constantly adding games that are either popular or their favorites, two criteria which are rather irrelevant on whether a game is "killer" (this is largely a mar--Locarno 14:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious List

message: How about some examples, which games are largely accepted as "killer games"? You could simply list those games that sold most units. Or were bundled with consoles. Or so. :/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.135.68.89 (talk • contribs) 
:I think you missed the huge debate over such a list. The problem, basically, is that selling well is not the same thing as being "killer." As a case-in-point, Super Mario Bros. 3 was the highest selling standalone cartridge for the original Nintendo Entertainment System. It was certainly not a killer game, however, because it was released relatively late in the life cycle of the system, and the console was already so well established in the market that there wasn't that much room for console sales to increase. By that same logic, it's extremely difficult to identify games bundled with consoles as killer, because there's no statistical data available to tell why a consumer purchased a particular system: it may or may not have been because of the bundled game. Ultimately, the list was removed because it was unworkable. It was next-to-impossible to come up with reliable sources to confirm or deny "killer" status, so it basically became no more than a war of opinions on the part of the article's editors. – Seancdaug 02:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples? 

message: The article does not mention when the term came into use. The 1990s? Chipmunk01 20:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When?