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"

[Androidsleeps]

I see we got to the point where they're trying to say it was metacritic that killed the otherwise cult favourite Days Gone. If metascores is all that matters why aren't they making a new Gravity Rush? Why do many games get glowing reviews but go nowhere and never get sequels? "Damn you Metacritic!" seems to be an easy excuse these days, the game looks so mediocre and uninteresting with a pretty boring settings and also apparently was very buggy at launch. I have the game from PS+ and didn't bother trying it yet, definitely not something I'd buy day one or full price no matter what if it was 71 or 81 MC.

 

[MysticGon]

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.

Click to shrink...

Yup and to circle back to my original point TV and movies put too much emphasis on the trendy nature of it's business. Must have big opening, must garner praise and then awards. That mindset means things have an expiration date. People know no matter what if they wait a year that software Sony wants to sell you for $70 will be a third of that price, if that, and potentially be better refined and have more content. Building your whole model on FOMO works as the sales reports show but it's a risky. Nintendo's strategy mimics things like manga and boardgames. People might not like it or get it at first but you give it time to find it's audience despite the naysayers. It's hard to do when so much money is on the line but I think that's what contributes to Nintendo games feeling timeless. As to why they don't depreciate? Who the fuck knows.

 

[Kupo Kupopo]

How does one buy games at full price if they like them?

Click to shrink...

thank you...

even jaffe couldn't figure that one out...

 

[ghostcrew]

Pubs dropping projects based on MetaCritic reception, and fans saying 'that seems like a good thing' is so intensely depressing to me. You could look at it as a badge of quality, I say where's the fucking art when you're relying solely on an average MC score. Christ.

If I was working with a record label that was instantly dropping bands after one record based on their MetaCritic scores rather than the art they were creating (or, more realistically, how they were received by fans, rather than critics) I think I'd leave the industry. How grim.

The full priced sales argument makes more sense to me. I think we all understand how sales can relate to how your projects are funded. But MetaCritic? It's not like Days Gone even has that poor of a MC score. It's 71. That's fine!

 

[IOTS]

I feel there's a step missing in the logic here. Metacritic score and the price you pay aren't related. So if MC is "everything" to Sony, what does it matter whether you buy it on sale?

Click to shrink...

You are missing the logic here because the OP decided to create a thread based on two seperate articles with two seperate click-bait titles. Listen to the interview itself to get any sense of nuiance.

If I was working with a record label that was instantly dropping bands after one record based on their MetaCritic scores rather than the art they were creating, I think I'd leave the industry. How grim.

Click to shrink...

This is a bad analogy because Sony is not dropping Bend. They are dropping Days Gone and are letting Bend create a brand new IP which to me is only a positive.

 

[Outrun]

Money is hard to come by for many including myself.

Likes vs. Needs.

 

[Zem]

I bought it day one and felt ripped off :/

It's not a bad game but I should have waited for a sale, even the reviews were average and I ignored that so my own mistake really.

 

[TRV]

I get that maybe the number of sales doesn't reflect how well the game did if many/most of those sales are at a reduced price. But to take that out on consumers is obviously in poor taste.

 

[B.O.O.M.]

Are people clinging on to the term 'everything' in the quote being serious? Surely you understand this is not meant to be taken as if Sony does not care about anything else but metacritic scores?

Of course critical reception is important to a publisher. It is also tied to potential sales, wom etc. But it is by no means there are no other considerations. Critical reception, profitability, dev time and process, importance to the overall product/services portfolio etc. are all important considerations. Nothing is black and white in this situations. I mean I see people keep saying the game was profitable etc. sure. I don't doubt it. But how profitable? At what point did it become profitable? Did they have to put it on sale and push it for over a year to get profitable? Less? Was it profitable at the time of the second games pitch? Does the management issues listed by the Days Gone lead in the interview part of the equation? Does Sony actually believe Bend can do better?

 

[medyej]

Sorry, I got rules

 

[ByWatterson]

... and Sony has some very shortsighted metrics for judging success and failure at their company...

Click to shrink...

Disagree. He also indicates Sony almost cares more about critical reception than profitability because a great reception can lead to long-term brand strength.

It's probably why Media Molecule is expanding, and Bend is at least somewhat a support studio now.

 

[Nola]

Was hoping the creator of the game saying "stop whining about a sequel to a game that didn't receive the requisite support" would've shut people up but nooooooo.

Also, the overlap between people going "yikes" at the notion that Sony cares about critical reception and the people who go "what's that metacritic 👀" on the launch day of any major release, even those they have 0 interest in playing is 105%. Bomba!

Click to shrink...

I think every publisher at this point cares about Metacritic, but it seems Sony, more than anyone, based on multiple accounts, puts an outsized emphasis on month one sales and metacritic, and id argue its to their company's detriment.

There's too many games just this gen we have seen that took time to proliferate and root in with consumers, and/or suffered poor or lacking early reception from official critics, but go on to be loved and highly endeared by consumers.

If I were Sony I would be rethinking the way i judge products because as prices continue to climb, and aggregators like Metacritic continue to show critical flaws, Sony raises the risk of cutting the legs out of IP's that could end up being brand pillars.

 

[fourfourfun]

Simple solution that other games do now: create an earnings model in your game that encourages post sales income, hack the price down immediately after launch and work the audience to spend from that point onwards, allowing them to spend significantly more over a longer period.

If you don't like that sort of game, but the ones you do like at full price and don't compare them to the ones that operate as above.

 

[LazyLain]

Even if someone played a game for free (a friend lent it to them, it was a PS+ title, EGS giveaway, etc), they're fully entitled to express desire for a sequel. It's not their obligation to personally bankroll a sequel, it's your job to make and market a successful game.

And yeah, sometimes even good games with solid marketing campaigns wind up being unsuccessful. When there's so many games vying for people's money, that's just the way the cookie crumbles sometimes.

But sure... if you wanna gatekeep fans from wanting more of your work, be my guest.

 

[daninthemix]

This is the first I've heard of the game not selling well.

 

[nib95]

Pubs dropping projects based on MetaCritic reception, and fans saying 'that seems like a good thing' is so intensely depressing to me. You could look at it as a badge of quality, I say where's the fucking art when you're relying solely on an average MC score. Christ.

If I was working with a record label that was instantly dropping bands after one record based on their MetaCritic scores rather than the art they were creating, I think I'd leave the industry. How grim.

Click to shrink...

Very different with music as albums don't cost $50m-$100m to make, plus people can just check them out on Spotify, YouTube or whatever before gauging if they want to buy, or bother listening on a streaming service etc. Games rarely have that luxury.

Also, this is less Sony dropping the band, and instead trying to get the band to focus on something newer or, ideally better quality. Eg with Bend now working on a new IP instead of Days Gone 2.

 

[Brodo Baggins]

I got Days Gone on sale due to good word of mouth, and the game's cast and story put me off entirely so I ended up dropping it about 8 hours in. The gameplay was alright, but I don't think Sony need another AAA zombie game series if TLOU is going to continue as a franchise.

Sony Bend working on another new IP sounds like a win for me.

 

[Nola]

Disagree. He also indicates Sony almost cares more about critical reception than profitability because a great reception can lead to long-term brand strength.

It's probably why Media Molecule is expanding, and Bend is at least somewhat a support studio now.

Click to shrink...

You aren't explaining why you disagree?

Do you think metacritic and month one sales are perfect barometers of a games long term success potential and quality? If yes than explain, if no, then you are reiterating my point, which is the metrics are too narrow and rigid, and need to be expanded and improved upon to take into account games that grow over time and/or are fairly or unfairly maligned early on but drastically improve.

 

[EricTheGamerman]

So you're happy that data set A exists, and mad that data set B exists. You should be happy the more data we have.

Only the quantifiable dataset is partificularly useful to a corporation. Looking at a trailer to see if something strikes your interest is good for you, but it is not quantifiable data.

Even if these decsions were based on fan reaction to trailers - fan trailer reaction for Days Gone was bad anyways. So no matter what metric you use, investment in Days Gone is probably a bad idea (and was from the beginning).

Click to shrink...

My post didn't really have anything to do with Days Gone as a defense. I think it was probably the right call for Sony to ask something else of Bend. My response was directed at the individual holding up Metacritic as a good thing because scores in game reviews, while technically quantifiable are kind of complete and utter nonsense. There's no standardization to them, there's no consistency to a lot of them, and a lot of them are borderline to downright fully coerced by publications desperate to avoid biting the hand that feeds to early game access.

Yeah, it makes sense why corporations use them in a fucking awful and scummy way, but my point is that I don't think Metacritic's actual scores really are of much value to end users except for conveniently having links to more useful reviews in one place.

 

[ScaleboundGOTY]

Days gone was shit when it first released, now its great. What is this guy even talking about. Make a great game day 1 then

 

[Shairi]

Project leads for video game development really need to broaden their launch models.

Days Gone should have been reduced in scope once it entered into development issues. Bend tried to bite off more than they could chew. I say this as a huge fan of the game and believer in Days Gone as an underrated gem, IMO.

However, there should be no hesitation in releasing games as "episodic" content. By far the most boring section of Days Gone is the first location. If I was project lead, I would have pushed for Bend to focus development on the first 1/3rd of the game. Devote all of the studios resources into crafting a special experience within the first available map. Write a more tightly crafted narrative around the characters introduced, while hinting at the broader narrative scope. Create better gameplay encounters and refine the gameplay mechanics so they would scale easily in future development. Then release that section of the game as episode 1 at say $30.

An alternate universe where Days Gone released as three episodic style games, all tightly crafted, bug free, better paced and priced at $30 would be interesting. Eventually, the full game could be rereleased at full price with challenge mode as a new bonus.

Click to shrink...

I don't think an episodic approach would have been better for the game but they had to cut it a lot shorter and pace it better.

Gavin even said that Sony was not happy with how long the game was. Scott Rhode supposedly put the controller down during a play session and rolled his eyes because there was a long non-gameplay part where you just got exposition.

So they shortened the game a bit. Originally it was even longer.

But Gavin said the big problem was, he was both the writer of the game and the creative director. As the one who wrote the story and wanted as much of that being used in the game, he was simply not ready to cut more of the game, even though it was needed, because he feared it wouldn't be as impactful story-wise.

 

[ByWatterson]

This is the first I've heard of the game not selling well.

Click to shrink...

It sold well, but not well enough to justify nearly a decade of development and $150 million.

Huge opportunity cost, even if technical profitability

 

[Keikaku]

Days gone looked mediocre from the start, if you want better sales make a better game.

 

[Servbot24]

My post didn't really have anything to do with Days Gone as a defense. I think it was probably the right call for Sony to ask something else of Bend. My response was directed at the individual holding up Metacritic as a good thing because scores in game reviews, while technically quantifiable are kind of complete and utter nonsense. There's no standardization to them, there's no consistency to a lot of them, and a lot of them are borderline to downright fully coerced by publications desperate to avoid biting the hand that feeds to early game access.

Yeah, it makes sense why corporations use them in a fucking awful and scummy way, but my point is that I don't think Metacritic's actual scores really are of much value to end users except for conveniently having links to more useful reviews in one place.

Click to shrink...

I really don't get what's so awful or scummy about companies wanting to make games that get a great critical reception. Obviously when you combine 100 opinions you don't get a cohesive opinion. That is not the point. The point is a reference number of how likely a game is to be appreciated by the audience that is reviewing it.

Also you need to prove this point "a lot of them are borderline to downright fully coerced by publications desperate to avoid biting the hand that feeds to early game access". Gamers love to make this baseless claim but there is close to zero evidence of it, and will be refuted by journalists even after they have left the industry.

 

[ByWatterson]

You aren't explaining why you disagree?

Do you think metacritic and month one sales are perfect barometers of a games long term success potential and quality? If yes than explain, if no, then you are reiterating my point, which is the metrics are too narrow and rigid, and need to be expanded and improved upon to take into account games that grow over time and/or are fairly or unfairly maligned early on but drastically improve.

Click to shrink...

You said it was shortsighted. I'm saying I think it's a rather long-term view.

I see your version of long-term, though. Makes sense, too.

 

[Gacha Santa Alter]

*chuckle*

This is rich coming from the guy who did Days Gone.

 

[Gouty]

Its funny how clearly he outlines his frustrations then describes Sony's role in his problems and when it comes time to connect these two ideas instead points to gamers.

If you're not happy with Sony's philosophy then get in bed with a different publisher.

 

[lunanto]

Yeah, why would they care how well the past games you directed were received before giving you another $100m budget and 5+ years to direct another game.

Click to shrink...

I think in a gaming forum folks would look after their interests as players instead of big corporations financials but ain´t looking like it.

 

[bremon]

Games are too expensive at the latest launch prices, despite being able to afford them. They're a poor value to me when the majority of the industry could be considered shovelware, and prices plummet quickly while patches come out later than launch to make the experience worthwhile.

I'd rather other people pay full price and have bugs and crashes so I can have a more affordable, smoother experience down the road; and if that model isn't sustainable for the industry I'll engage in new hobbies because video games aren't important enough to me to spend anywhere near $500+ a year on.

As for metacritic; a general score is important to me as a baseline so I can get a feel for what games would interest me, then I dive into the OT for said game on era and see if it's for me. It's a shame that some potential franchises live or die on review scores but I'm not going to throw darts at a wall to randomly pick games to play hoping it isn't a buggy waste of time.

 

[Deleted member 24907]

With Sony pushing for $70 games at launch they've only further guaranteed they're getting no money from me without sales. So this sounds like a problem between Garvin and Sony. Don't know where he thinks Sony's dumb success metrics are the consumer's fault.

 

[Nola]

That's also a way to end a discussion.

Click to shrink...

Buddy you haven't responded to what I have wrote since your initial response. Conversational respect is a two way street.

I also asked a very straight forward question you ignored entiriely to rage post at me about a mischaracterization of my point:

Do you think Metacritic and month one sales are a perfect and accurate barometer of a game's quality and lifecycle success? If yes, explain, if no, then you are backing up my point that Sony would be wise to develop a more holistic and nuanced way to determine a IP's success or failure.

 

[FacelessSamurai]

MS won't fund many 50m+ open world games if they aren't successful enough.

Smaller things, sure.

Click to shrink...

They don't dictate what their devs are doing, and as far as We know they are funding several open world games .

 

[MegaSackman]

From what I've read about that stream from users here, he said things far more interesting than this crap.

 

[Fabtacular]

Sony isn't at all unique in this respect.

They put out few games, and the ones they do put out are incredibly expensive. All it takes is two flops in a row and things could get bad for them.

Everyone asking for a Days Gone sequel would be sitting on their hands if asked to invest some part of the $80m a sequel would cost.

 

[SofNascimento]

He isn't wrong.

Days Gone was also, as far as I can tell, a bug mess on launch and further builds the narrative that it's not worth it to buy games day 1. So people who skipped its launch weren't wrong either.

 

[The Gold Hawk]

"You weiners didn't pay £50 for it at launch and now you'll never get the privilege to pay £70 for a sequel"

 

[Uzupedro]

They don't dictate what their devs are doing, and as far as We know they are funding several open world games .

Click to shrink...

Not forcing devs to do something doesn't mean the pitch process doesn't exist, as far as I know it's not the case.
Days Gone 2 pitch was refused, simple as that.

 

[Deleted member 13798]

This makes sense though- initial sales are what matters to companies more than sales over time. Everything is based on top 10 rankings and charts.

If a game isn't at the very least on track to recoup it's budget immediately, a sequel isn't really on the table.

 

[Nola]

You said it was shortsighted. I'm saying I think it's a rather long-term view.

I see your version of long-term, though. Makes sense, too.

Click to shrink...

It's short-sighted in that, it would appear, based on multiple developer accounts, that Sony is literally judging success and failure on initial critical reception and early sales.

When we have a dozen or more examples of major successes this last Gen of properties that defy that convention.

All im saying is that you would hope for Sony to be more adaptable in their metrics so as to not risk that faith with what could be the next major tent pole simply because it didn't perform out the gate perfectly. Not speaking about Days Gone, but generally

 

[Servbot24]

They don't dictate what their devs are doing, and as far as We know they are funding several open world games .

Click to shrink...

Source? Having no pitch process sounds completely absurd.

 

[jaymzi]

Buddy you haven't responded to what I have wrote since your initial response. Conversational respect is a two way street.

I also asked a very straight forward question you ignored entiriely to rage post at me about a mischaracterization of my point:

Do you think Metacritic and month one sales are a perfect and accurate barometer of a game's quality and lifecycle success? If yes, explain, if no, then you are backing up my point that Sony would be wise to develop a more holistic and nuanced way to determine a IP's success or failure.

Click to shrink...

What metrics do you think Sony should look towards in deciding whether or not to greenlight a sequel to Days Gone?

 

[Bradbatross]

Man, Bend must have been in a panic when Days Gone got a 71 MC. Sounds like they're lucky to even still be around.

 

[Rosebud]

They don't dictate what their devs are doing, and as far as We know they are funding several open world games .

Click to shrink...

You think they just greenlight every 50m+ pitch they receive?

Sony isn't forcing Bend to do what they don't want, they pitched a new IP and it was allowed.

 

[IOTS]

They don't dictate what their devs are doing

Click to shrink...

Hahaha, the naivity.

 

[ByWatterson]

It's short-sighted in that, it would appear, based on multiple developer accounts, that Sony is literally judging success and failure on initial critical reception and early sales.

When we have a dozen or more examples of major successes this last Gen of properties that defy that convention.

All im saying is that you would hope for Sony to be more adaptable in their metrics so as to not risk that faith with what could be the next major tent pole simply because it didn't perform out the gate perfectly. Not speaking about Days Gone, but generally

Click to shrink...

Yeah, I get that.

But I'm guessing the tail for Days Gone wasn't that long, and the critical reception didn't counter that.

Pretty confident the decision regarding a sequel wasn't made in April 2019.

 

[fiendcode]

Seems odd to chastise gamers for doing what the industry at large (except Nintendo) encourages them to do and wait for swift and regular price collapses.

 

[FacelessSamurai]

And thats supposed to be a good thing? Put out content just barely good enough not to lose subscriptions?

Click to shrink...

Is that what I said though or you are just trying to put words in my mouth/pretend like Game Pass is all about sub par games? (By the way, it isn't) As far as we know people are happy with Days Gone and it's a good game, yet Sony won't make a sequel because of sales/low metacritic score (since when is 71 and 8.3 user score bad?). This is beyond stupid and ensures their other studios won't want to take risks and keep pumping out the same style of third person game.

 

[Dekuman]

Metacritic score being 'everything' to a publisher is why you see publishers continue to short circuit the reviews sytem and abuse it for AAA releases.
Can;t wait for PlayStation FanClub News to get early review copies so they can get their 10/10 for Metacritic in for the next AAA game to boost the average.

 

[JaseC64]

I like Bend generally speaking. Bought DG day1 to support them but this opinion ain't it.

Casting the blame on the fans or user base.

Look Bend should have know for their first aaa title, things weren't gonna be a 10m.

The other weird thing is there are reports this game sold 5M or so copies. Why the hell is this still bad thing? Like Holy shit I remember doing 1M was considered amazing. Now 5M is like "meh, shit ain't good bruh. That's trash, time to axe your whole dev team and demote every lead!" Maybe not but come the hell on.

Garvin isn't helping the situation by pushing the idea DG sold like trash. It didn't. Whether it sold it at full price or after discount, it doesn't matter.

Now Sony on the other might still see DG2 as selling same or less (I'm sure they made their research). Idk why, no one will really know why DG2 wasn't green lit but I think The Last of US part 2 doing way better and their similarity being really close made Sony just consider removing this IP in case it could "eat off of it" type of stuff I don't know.

As a Bend fan, the fact their dev team wasn't terminated is good enough. DG2 won't be a thing, big woop. They can make a new game. Nice!

Fans liked the "secret ending" but in reality its not like a cliff hanger. We got the full character arch and shit. That game's story was done, we good fam. Not sure why this keeps getting "blown up" out of proportions. (The Sony decision might be interesting to consider but not DG2 not existing)

 

[OldBritBloke]

On the plus side, this bodes very well for future support of Dreams!