lol it was mostly ign's review along with a few others combined with the beta i played. But yeah that Days Gone review thread is telling.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Days Gone Lead: "Don’t Complain if There’s no Sequel if you Didn’t Buy it Full Price", "Metacritic Score Is Everything to Sony"
- Thread starter NeoRaider
- Start date
Translation before the outrag-... Nevermind.
Ok, still, translation:
-he is right
-the entire interview helps a lot because he is not avoiding his responsibility in game's success/failure
-he is telling it how it is, the game was met with nothing but question marks and passive remarks to negatives prior to launch because it was 'just another zombie game', post launch it was a 70+ metacritic fully priced game and it took a lot of months and effort and patching to get it where it is now.
-but late fanbase and buying AAA at 1/3 of the price is not what greenlights a sequel at Sony, that is understandable
He is not telling you to spend money like a maniac and ignore the meta, he is telling you that specifically Days Gone wasn't there at launch, both critically and from a gamer staindpoint
Compare it to GoT and you know it's true.
Ok, still, translation:
-he is right
-the entire interview helps a lot because he is not avoiding his responsibility in game's success/failure
-he is telling it how it is, the game was met with nothing but question marks and passive remarks to negatives prior to launch because it was 'just another zombie game', post launch it was a 70+ metacritic fully priced game and it took a lot of months and effort and patching to get it where it is now.
-but late fanbase and buying AAA at 1/3 of the price is not what greenlights a sequel at Sony, that is understandable
He is not telling you to spend money like a maniac and ignore the meta, he is telling you that specifically Days Gone wasn't there at launch, both critically and from a gamer staindpoint
Compare it to GoT and you know it's true.
Sold a lot of copies for its budget and there was potential to further improve things in a sequel.
"players should buy games at full price if they like them"
lol
this is good stuff
if they want to base everything on launch sales that's fine but everyone can't buy everything at launch
lol
this is good stuff
if they want to base everything on launch sales that's fine but everyone can't buy everything at launch
Metacritic is good. Bought some great games partly because of it.
While there are some outliers, in general I tend to agree with Metascore (+- 10 points). In my experience there are also way more games overrated by Metacritic, rather than underrated.
While there are some outliers, in general I tend to agree with Metascore (+- 10 points). In my experience there are also way more games overrated by Metacritic, rather than underrated.
Yeah not a lot of people are going to "love" a new IP that scores average and then go buy it day 1. Get some perspective and blame the business model not customers.
Could you say no to Cerny?
Knack wouldn't have had a massive budget or a poor development, so a Knack 2 wouldn't have as much against it.
I assumed the headline's characterization would be exaggerated, but the quote and tone from the actual interview is more flagrant than I expected.
Like, I'm someone who's lucky enough to be able to afford a good number of current-gen priced games each year, but this feels gross, and a bit brainless. Obviously you should buy the games you want to see more of in a general sense, but it's a *broad* expectation to put on players when you lambast them for buying games at other prices or play them on paid subscription services.
Putting the demand on players to blindly "support" big budget games in this sense (i.e., new, unproven titles without a demo) and implying people can't be frustrated if a sequel isn't even considered because of seemingly arbitrary walls from the publisher isn't a message I'm likely to respond to, and I feel like that's not just me. Especially when the game is big-budget, but certainly not a show-stopper in that sense.
Like, I'm someone who's lucky enough to be able to afford a good number of current-gen priced games each year, but this feels gross, and a bit brainless. Obviously you should buy the games you want to see more of in a general sense, but it's a *broad* expectation to put on players when you lambast them for buying games at other prices or play them on paid subscription services.
Putting the demand on players to blindly "support" big budget games in this sense (i.e., new, unproven titles without a demo) and implying people can't be frustrated if a sequel isn't even considered because of seemingly arbitrary walls from the publisher isn't a message I'm likely to respond to, and I feel like that's not just me. Especially when the game is big-budget, but certainly not a show-stopper in that sense.
And this is putting aside the state Days Gone launched in.
... What?
I don't remember the reception being mediocre for Doom.
What a piss poor take. This game even launched with a litany of tech issues and a 70ish metascore. I'd even go as far to say a lot of people bought it full price because it was a Sony exclusive, and that's akin to quality at this point. Hell, that's why I bought it at launch full price, but haven't even opened it yet because of how underwhelming the reviews for it were.
If you want people to buy your game at full price at launch, make a great game that runs well and is well reviewed weeks before launch. It is very difficult to expect the consumer to part with $60+ dollars at launch, let alone $70 without some sort of assurances.
If you want people to buy your game at full price at launch, make a great game that runs well and is well reviewed weeks before launch. It is very difficult to expect the consumer to part with $60+ dollars at launch, let alone $70 without some sort of assurances.
I love how the gamepass model makes these issues way less severe. Engagement is king, not huge front loaded game sales.
Xenoblade and Pikmin would have been a better examples but the point still stands. But yes Nintendo won't keep plugging away at something if it doesn't make money, they are still a business. But they are a lot less likely to let launch periods, metacritic scores and lack of awards dictate the fate of a series if there is even a small following.
Its budget was paid with Twinkies. You can tell it was low funded AF.
"Marvel movies. Game of Thrones and True Blood weren't the successes they were season one"
Yes they where massive successes right out of the gate, and because these early indicators that these movies/shows where a success (ticket sales, rotten tomato's, view counts), they got developed further.
No one pushes a flopped show around to see if it gets good. DC tried with their Universe and paid dearly for it.
You want to spend 14 years of development to see if a flopped games gets good in part2? With an IP as bland as Days Gone? This isnt a flopped Star Wars game, this is a new IP that got shit on for its unimaginative setting right from the first trailer.
How are the general public meant to know they're "supposed to" buy games right when they launch?!
People pick up back-catalogue movies, albums, books etc for their collections all the time.
It's not their fault that this industry in particular doesn't seem to understand those buying habits, and can't seem to balance the books by factoring in long tail sales, and it's also not the public's fault for not knowing (or caring) about the "importance" of buying games in an incredibly short launch window.
People pick up back-catalogue movies, albums, books etc for their collections all the time.
It's not their fault that this industry in particular doesn't seem to understand those buying habits, and can't seem to balance the books by factoring in long tail sales, and it's also not the public's fault for not knowing (or caring) about the "importance" of buying games in an incredibly short launch window.
I'm sorry, but you absolutely don't get to play the "Pay full price to support it" card when you're making a new IP that had sketchy pre-launch opinions and was coming from a team that hadn't made a console game in years. A lot of people just don't have money to pay that much for what may have been, and frankly was, a botched release.
And to compare it to God of War in that quote is embarassing. Established franchise, established team, people loved it in previews, etc.
And to compare it to God of War in that quote is embarassing. Established franchise, established team, people loved it in previews, etc.
Yeah. He's clearly saying why Days Gone didn't get a sequel. He's not calling out ungrateful gamer bastards.
Days Gone had middling word of mouth from previews, a 70s Metacritic score, and even had some negative attention around launch due to some meme-worthy bad dialogue that only made sense in context if you played deeper into the game (which many people did not). Take all of that together along with the initial sales, and it's easy to see why Sony would reject a sequel.
I stated above. I played a pretty uninspired multiplayer beta that was followed by the ign review. Who which i still held in high regard at the time. I didnt read the review, just looked at the score along with a few other early reviews. I was an idiot.
Those two are not the only things, the whole interview goes over alot of other things wrong with Days Gone and internal conflict at Bend. He wasnt even with Bend when they made the sequel pitch. And considering how integral he was to the first game (wrote every dialogue in the first game apparently), no one knows how good the sequel pitch was without him.
Because the general public isn't that stupid?
This doesn't apply just to games but movies etc. as well.
Do people expect a sequel to an expensive movie if the first one bombs at the box office?
To be fair many people here decided the game was not worth it when the first few horde videos were released. It was Era's predicted flop of 2019 in multiple polls IIRC. The review thread was more like a "told ya so" moment.
Days Gone Review Thread (See Staff Post)
Thanks to Ricky_R for the banner. Link to the Official Thread. Shout out to my boy Nagito for all the hard work. https://www.resetera.com/threads/days-gone-ot-a-deacon-of-hope.113142/ Welcome one and all to what's sure to be a ledge of a thread. First unveiled at E3 2016, SIE Bend Studio's...www.resetera.com
This review thread is fun to watch by just how many decide the game is not worth their money the minute the reviews embargo lifts. It went from people predicting metacritic scores to people talking about how much of a miss the game. Aggregates are such a surface level way to determine the value of entertainment and art. Ive been guilty of this as well. It took me about a week or so to buy Doom 2016 because of the mediocre reception. Then once i actually started talking to people that had played it and reading positive talks on the game i finally bought it. One of the greatest games in my adult life.
Why should that be their dilemma? Do your best to give it the score it deserves is all that should be asked of them.
I mean, yeah he's right
but with £70 games it's going to be way more difficult for this argument to be justified.
It's also kind of funny because by his definition the public have decided that a sequel isn't really wanted if we take sales and reviews into account so.....?
but with £70 games it's going to be way more difficult for this argument to be justified.
It's also kind of funny because by his definition the public have decided that a sequel isn't really wanted if we take sales and reviews into account so.....?
No accountability on his part. Completely forgets to mention that the initial product that was being sold was buggy. Why should i spend full price on a buggy product? It was only once it was on sale and given away on plus that the product was finally completed
Yeah, I'm not paying full price aka release price aka max price point for a game ever again. With GamePass I have a great selection of no-hassle games and for the rest I usually every now and then check Metacritic for _last_ year and buy anything that sounds interesting.
Guess that disqualifies me from having an opinion though.
Guess that disqualifies me from having an opinion though.
I mean, I also don't think it's the job of critics to praise a game that just is not worth the money. It's unfortunate that publishers just look at a number sometimes to approve a sequel or a future title by that team, but that's far more an issue of publishers than critics.
For example, how do you honestly write a review for something like Balan Wonderworld or that Fast and the Furious game from last year that simultaneously ensures that team is happy while also not encouraging people to buy what is just a pretty damn bad game?
I would consider it, if Sony offered refunds and lowered the price back to 60. Not so much with the way things are now.
Blaming the customers is not a good way to go about this.
Blaming the customers is not a good way to go about this.
Couldn't have said it better. I played for an hour or two and felt that I have already played this before. I can't be bothered to explore yet another open world and hunt checkboxes. Ejected disk and sold. And zombies, again? Yawn
So what about games that are not chosen for Game Pass? They are basically left to die.
This isn't on the reviewer. At all. This is Sony's business model at work.
Those are way better examples, yeah. Probably the two best examples actually. Japan Studio fulfilled that role in a lot of ways, but we all know what's happened there. Agreed on the bolded too. Having said all that, I'm curious to see how the upcoming years play out.
If something like Returnal doesn't sell 5m+ copies but ends up getting a 95 on metacritic, is it more likely to receive a sequel than if it got a 70 on metacritic but sold 5m+ copies? Remains to be seen.
Looking at day 1 sales is not going to be sustainable I think. Seeing how to game performs across the full price continuum is going to be more important with bigger price tag at launch that still eventually shrink to nothing because of the competition on the platforms. Even if he's right for 2019 when this came out, I wouldn't be surprised if Sony has changed its calculus slightly since then. Well, probably not at PS5 launch because there are so few native PS5 games. But a year or two from now.
Lol. The more I hear about Sony the less I feel I want to part of their gaming environment. I hope the tides will turn cause they do have some good exclusive games.
It seems clear you aren't actually reading what I say and instead feels like you are trying to reflexively defend a billion dollar corporation for reasons.
True blood was not massive out the gate. It debuted with barely a million viewers. Game of Thrones season one garnered 2 million viewers. Compare that to their later seasons where Game of Thrones was pulling in 8-10 million day one views and True Blood 6 million. With equal or more from DVR and DVD sales.
They were not massive successes out the gate. But they were kept because unlike Rome era HBO, where that series also garnered similar season one ratings, difference being that True Blood and GoT era HBO recognized a product's success is not accurately measured by just their day one viewings and critic scores. A more holistic approach must be considered, including that brands take time to build.
That is what Sony lacks if these claims are accurate. Unless you think no game has ever seen a post launch surge or metacritic is a 100% accurate barometer of quality. If not, then Sony's weighted metric focused on release window sales and metacritic is flawed. End of story.
You didn't mention the MP beta in your previous post but yeah, only looking at the score of the first few reviews and being "done" with said game is silly... The sad thing is that a lot of people likely do the same shit nowadays.
Well, i bought it on a sale and I'm glad I didn't buy it full price, since it's the most boring Sony game I played in a long time and I stopped playing after a few hours.
And it's not about the meta score, I really enjoyed Concrete Genie. It's not a great game, but at least it's special. Days Gone is just a vanilla zombie open world game like every other game.
And it's not about the meta score, I really enjoyed Concrete Genie. It's not a great game, but at least it's special. Days Gone is just a vanilla zombie open world game like every other game.