Top 20 XBLA titles purchased in 2006
Xbox Live's Major Nelson posted some interesting year-end numbers, including this ranking of 2006's top Xbox Live Arcade titles ranked in order of sales:
1 UNO
2 Street Fighter II' Hyper Fighting
3 Geometry Wars Evolved
4 Marble Blast Ultra
5 PAC-MAN
6 DOOM
7 Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3
8 GALAGA
9 Gauntlet
10 Frogger
11 Bankshot Billiards 2
12 SmashTV
13 Contra
14 Zuma
15 Texas Hold 'em
16 Bejeweled 2
17 Feeding Frenzy
18 Small Arms
19 Cloning Clyde
20 LUMINES LIVE!
A few comments:
1. Who the heck is purchasing Gauntlet? That game is broken! (Hitting "Y" on the controller is the same as inserting a quarter into the original arcade game, but it can be hit an unlimited number of times, making it equivalent to an "invincibility" button.) Gauntlet's place on this list demonstrates the power of nostalgia over gameplay when it comes to arcade titles. We suspect that Nintendo's virtual console is benefiting from the same misguided gamer nostalgia. Some old games just don't hold up.
2. Most (all?) annual Xbox Live Gold subscriptions sold in the retail box (the one with the cheapo headset) included a free game code to redeem Bankshot Billiards 2, making that $15 game's rank on this list suspect.
3. Feeding Frenzy would be higher on this list if there were a reason to pay for it. It feels like the demo mode lasts forever. It's quite satisfying to play without ever purchasing it.
4. Street Fighter II would have been number one on this list if a solid arcade joystiq had been released simultaneously with the game. First- and third-party peripheral manufacturers really blew an opportunity there.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
koheed @ Dec 30th 2006 11:58AM
I'm still waiting for an adapter for my X-Arcade sticks for the 360. According to X-Arcade:
"We are receiving daily inquires regarding Xbox 360 adapter availability. If you weren't already aware, Microsoft™'s new policy for third-party controller support will drastically delay any releases from 3rd-party hardware makers like us. They have developed a security system for controllers to be recognized on the Xbox 360, therefore allowing the company to control the pricing and supply of all input devices for the system."
otakucode @ Dec 30th 2006 12:20PM
Feeding Frenzy would be a lot high on the list if it were cheaper. I want the game, but it's so simple I most definitely won't be paying $10 for it.
And Outpost Kaloki X isn't on the list? That's strange, it's an extremely good game... maybe people just don't like real time strategy games in the arcade.
Mr. Khan @ Dec 30th 2006 12:26PM
Bankshot Billiards 2 probably does not merit that position, but that position it will hold
Similar to how Wii sports will probably be the best selling game this generation by virtue of being packed in with a console (even if the wii only sells, say, 15 million units in North America, thats still enough to net top selling this gen)
Its not fair, but thats marketing for ya...
What The @ Dec 30th 2006 12:29PM
How can SF2 be up there when its so frickin difficult to find someone to play with!!! When it first came out, it was easy, now its near impossible!
Hammer @ Dec 30th 2006 12:29PM
I was actually quite surprised at the number of retro game that made the top twenty. Especially since you can get better versions of many of them for free on the internet.
Uno is one of the most enjoyable experiences on XBL though. You get some great banter playing it.
oobey @ Dec 30th 2006 12:34PM
Sigh. Looks like someone didn't actually read the help file. Gauntlet isn't broken. For the purposes of determining your score for any High Score table, your in-game score is divided by how many quarters you inserted (ie how many times you hit Y) into the game.
So, yes, you can slam 100 quarters in there and become "invincible" but good luck getting any sort of decent high score unless you break a million+ points.
kon @ Dec 30th 2006 12:58PM
i bought gauntlet :)
Wings in Motion @ Dec 30th 2006 1:00PM
Arcade games are designed to keep you shoving quarters into the machine, to the point where most of them require a nigh-unattainable level of skill and/or luck to surpass them with a single credit. Having an "insert coin" button should be mandatory for all arcade ports, because we've all already paid our money and don't exactly enjoy starting over from the beginning.
Jonah Falcon @ Dec 30th 2006 1:01PM
"(Hitting "Y" on the controller is the same as inserting a quarter into the original arcade game, but it can be hit an unlimited number of times, making it equivalent to an "invincibility" button.)"
Maybe you should notice that:
1. High scores are PER COIN.
2. You can't do that in online play.
Evan @ Dec 30th 2006 1:20PM
I doubt XBLA could hold a candle to the popularity of game portals like MSN Games (http://zone.msn.com/) and Yahoo! Games (http://games.yahoo.com/). I can understand why Microsoft is trying to cover that segment of the market, but in the overall scheme of things, I don't think XBLA is very important.
epobirs @ Dec 30th 2006 1:23PM
There have been numerous releases of Gauntlet since the NES days with the exact same infinite quarters feature, along with numerous similarly structured arcade game adaptations. People appear able to restrain themselves and choose how they want to play.
Trey @ Dec 30th 2006 1:24PM
Maybe you should write a post using poorly applied economic theory to explain why people that enjoy playing Gauntlet on their 360 are wrong to do so. I would suggest something about how rational consumers can't derive utility from an arcade port that allows you to insert infinite quarters.
You're also going to want to find a way to explain the sale of all those cheating devices like action replay that people buy so they can play their games with things like infinite health, since you're attributing a willingness to play a game with infinite health to an irrational need for nostalgia.
Take care!
NoiseTankNick @ Dec 30th 2006 1:29PM
Lesson #5: Very few people are willing to pay 3 times for the same game - Lumines Live, I'm looking in your general direction.
epobirs @ Dec 30th 2006 1:30PM
Outside of this forum, it was suggested that XBLA Gauntlet owners be charged the equivalent of 25 cents in MS points for each continue. My reply is below:
The player has already sunk the equivalent of many quarters into the game during its purchase. In this era of host systems that vastly exceed the requirements to run the exact arcade machine rather than an approximation, it isn't unreasonable to expect access to the free play mode supported by nearly every arcade machine. Part of the charm of the Namco Museum when it first appeared was to see the machines 'bout up' within the emulator and present the settings menu where hardware switches weren't the sole operator
control. Some of those old arcade machines have limiters on the number of continues that can be obtained (Gradius) or place conditions on the victory
level that can be achieved.
For instance, arcade original Gauntlet tracks high score per coin. A player cannot buy their way to a high score over more skilled players regardless of how many quarters they are willing to invest. At best,
additional quarters allow the player to keep his character going with all acquired bonuses such as extra speed or armor rather than starting from
scratch at the same level. The XBLA version should behave similarly if it maintains authenticity. Otherwise, it is a bad implementation, not because
it allows the application of infinite virtual quarters but because it fails to replicate the arcade design and intent of the creators after much play
testing.
That original design was meant to strike a balance between maximizing operator revenue and maintaining player interest. The 80s precursor to microtransactions.
You can obtain the original arcade Gauntlet Operator's Manual here:
http://www.basementarcade.com/arcade/library/manuals/g/gauntman.pdf
Note the advice given to operators and how this changes if one were to buy a Gauntlet machine for your home and set it to Free Play mode. Then consider whether buying a console version should differ from owning the standalone arcade unit.
John H. @ Dec 30th 2006 1:41PM
I was going to say something about the Gauntlet hatin', but I see that it's been handled well enough already.
Matthew Skinner-Thebo @ Dec 30th 2006 1:48PM
I bought Gauntlet thinking that it would be a lot of fun for my friend and I to play. I was wrong.
TravistyOJ @ Dec 30th 2006 2:21PM
Am I the only one who cannot stand the way Vlad writes? He always seems to convey this matter-of-fact, absolutist, "This is the way it is, and I'm fucking right" attitude. I mean who cares if you buy a game based on nostalgia? Who cares if there is an insert coin button? It detracts from your score. And how can you be so sure that selling an arcade joystick would bump SFII to number 1? Uno was pretty fucking fun.
I had to deal with so many pricks like this in college who act like they know everything. It gets annoying. Vlad, don't be so full of yourself.
Spilt_Milk @ Dec 30th 2006 2:35PM
I bought Gaunlet because of the shear amount of quarters I shoved in the machine as a kid. I told my young self that when I was all growed up I would make sure to have that game if possible.
Hart704 @ Dec 30th 2006 3:09PM
Never mind who's buying Gauntlet. Who's not buying a great game like Assault Heroes? That's what I'd like to know.
Pete C @ Dec 30th 2006 3:13PM
What does he mean by "cheapo headset"?? That headset is nice!
Also, when are we going to get Ms. Pac Man on XBLA? Oh, and a good digital joystick to play the arcade games with.
Jonah Falcon @ Dec 30th 2006 3:22PM
One more thing: UNO is the surprise hit of the year. I mean, everyone has an UNO deck, and it's just one step away from the kid's card game War. But... it's addictive to everyone (including me), and there's no real reason why, except is a Family Friendly Screw Your Opponent Game. >:)
Jonah Falcon @ Dec 30th 2006 3:23PM
"Never mind who's buying Gauntlet. Who's not buying a great game like Assault Heroes? That's what I'd like to know."
It was just released, so it didn't have the time to achieve the number of sales. Also, the co-op needs to be patched.
Alex Keen @ Dec 30th 2006 3:49PM
Gauntlet isn't broken, they just make cheating a bit easier. And is it broken if I decided to show up at a real arcade with $20 in quarters? Gauntlet is one of the first co-op games and it is still loved because of the group experience. The day NBA Jam comes to XBLA, look out.
fidgetwidget @ Dec 30th 2006 4:18PM
I think the real question here is "does cheating break a game?"
For some people it will, the ones who dont nessesarily want to cheat, but when it is made very easy to do so, cant help themselves.
I used to cheat in games back in the NES days. But I didnt find it broke the game for me. My best arcade experience was playing an old shooter where someone had added almost 200 credits to the game. The fear of dying was gone, but the tension wasnt. I still tryed to stay alive as long as I could, and when I dyed, I was still penalized by loosing all the powerups. There was a balance.
The problem with the old arcade model, is that it doesnt work for the average gamer. Modern gamers wouldnt have gone to the arcades and droped $30 in machines, they would have dropped $2, and been done with it.
Think about MMO's and the death penalty in those games. No one likes loosing levels for dying, and no one likes loosing their equipment. A balance needed to be made, and the same is true in arcade games comming to the console.
My personl favorate example of an arcade game type working well on a home console is Jackel for the NES. There are many others that work allong this same model... die x number of times, force continue. Continue resets your score, and starts you at the start of the level you were on. Death costs you your power ups. Penalty is what creats tension... and ion the case of Guantlet, it was never a great game. Nothing broke it, its always been like that.
Dirk Dorkelson @ Dec 30th 2006 4:21PM
"Am I the only one who cannot stand the way Vlad writes? He always seems to convey this matter-of-fact, absolutist, "This is the way it is, and I'm fucking right" attitude."
Nah, that's how you're supposed to write. No one likes to read commentary that is watered down with, "I think," "I humbly submit," "IMHO," or their ilk. Everyone's supposed to be smart enough to know that it's Vlad's opinion, not fact.
This list bums me out because the original IP that were fun (Small Arms, Cloning Clyde) are way down on the list. So much for XBLA being a revolution. People want to just by endless iterations of the same games they've been playing for 20 years. Granted, it hasn't been out for as long, but Assault Heroes doesn't even show on the list. Neither does Outpost Kaloki X.
Dirk Dorkelson @ Dec 30th 2006 4:22PM
Whoops, "buy," not "by." Sheesh.
AJ @ Dec 30th 2006 5:09PM
I'm going off topic but I don't care.
If E.T. were to be sold on either XBLA or the VC it would be the top selling title like ever. Can you look me in the eye and honestly say you wouldn't buy it?
Ryan D. @ Dec 30th 2006 5:16PM
"Street Fighter II would have been number one on this list if a solid arcade joystiq had been released simultaneously with the game."
Hey, mister, it's still spelled "joystick".
Anyway.. my only gripe with this article is... I mean.. who -cares-? The rankings aside, does there really need to be that much thought into whether or not a title or another deserved to get that spot? It's not a contest, it's just metrics.
Tim @ Dec 30th 2006 7:13PM
Who in the hell ever played Gauntlet with the primary concern being what or how high their score was in the first place? I nor anyone I ever played with whether it be the original arcade machines way back in the day or the early console releases or when playing the arcade ROMs via MANE or the like ever even bothered looking at the score in the first place. It is and always was a game of progression, to see how far/deep you could make it through the game. Granted it was more of a challenge back in the original arcade games because as a kid you were always limited by money, but even then we never even bothered looking at the score in the first place unless by some sheer happenstance one of us found we'd beaten a high score and had to record it...but even then it never held the same kind of meaning or feeling of accomplishment that getting the high score on Pac-Man or Galaga or that sort of game did.
phillechill @ Dec 30th 2006 8:12PM
This ranking is based on user activity for purchased games. So if you buy Small Arms, but only play it once, it doesn't help Small Arms in the rankings...
Rob @ Dec 30th 2006 8:34PM
Its a shame Wik didnt get more sales.
Takes a bit of getting into, but once practiced, it is a masterpiece of platform gaming, in my humble opinion.
Yoshi Likes Boys @ Dec 31st 2006 5:54AM
The VC is succeeding because a lot of old games, especially those made by Nintendo, DO hold up. When I start my 360, I'd actually usually rather play Pac-Man than most of the crap for that system.
Keith @ Jan 2nd 2007 12:02PM
I hope Microsoft and Nintendo switch to an advertising model for these games. They could run a few clickable ads while you play and give the games away for free. I've bought 6 XBLA and 2 Wii classic games so far, and I just don't play them enough to justify the $5-10 cost. I doubt I'll buy any more. Free games might also lead to better matchmaking odds in games like Street Fighter II.