• Light/Dark
  • 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"

Yueezy

Yueezy

Member
Dec 12, 2020
274
AAA industry is savage, and I definitely feel for devs but.. $70 is kind of high price point to convince majority of people to pay for a game even if they want to. For movies and shows, it is much more accessible but honestly I am not really sure how the 70 price will pan out. I will only wait and see.
 
Benny Del Toro

Benny Del Toro

Member
Aug 9, 2018
666
Shellshock said:
Oh I'm well aware of why it's not feasible, it isnt really possible to have games get rereviewed consistently. It's just a shame that games that have improved greatly dont have that reflected on a metacritic score since a lot of people put stock into that number.

I worded my previous comment poorly. My bad.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
True, I think a compromise would be to re-score those games that have been greatly improved over time. Sea of Thieves and No Man's Sky comes to mind. Not sure how it will benefit single player games since, as others have already mentioned, rarely does it improve the game that a big jump in its score is warranted.

Cenauru said:
This is something that youtube reviews are really good for. Any long-lasting game you can search something like "<Game> in <current year>" and you're bound to get a few hits, and likely one of those channels has done the same in previous years or is making their own because no one else has yet for the current year. Most of the time it's never a score ranking that you flick to the end, there's no statistic being recorded, it's just someone's words for a game that they likely enjoy and will explain what the game does and does not offer.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah, I agree. It might not come from big publications but that might also be a plus. Like others have said, Metacritic is one tool and there are other tools you can use to supplement that when trying to make an informed decision when buying games.
 
Izamaru

Izamaru

Member
Nov 27, 2018
254
Greece
Im really curious what will happen to many new projects costing 80 euro in europe. No way im spending 80 for returnal or deathloop day 1.
 
Nerun

Nerun

Member
Oct 30, 2017
2,270
I still have to say the game was unfairly reviewed and the only explanation I have is -> Reviewers did not spend enough time with it. Yes, the performance wasn't the best, but that was mostly the case for the last parts of the map/game and I'm sure that most reviewers never saw that. I was at a preview event and reviewed the final game and I have no idea, why the game received mostly mediocre scores. I know time is limited, but even with limited time one should play a decent part of the game and I don't think many reviewers did that, that's what resulted in the scores. But that's just my opinion and taste differs of course.

Overall it was one of my favourite games in 2019 and I think a lot of people enjoyed it, once they actually played it or gave it a chance for more than an hour or two.

Aside from that, prices for console games are usually high and higher as PC game prices. But it was still ok last gen from my perspective, which changed this gen in Europe at least. I will think twice before buying a new game/IP for 80 Euro, for example Returnal. I'm still very unsure about the game and how long I will find it enjoyable, so I won't buy it day one. 80 Euro is a steep amount for "might like it or not at all", too much for my taste. On Steam it is so easy to refund stuff and cheaper anyway, so if I don't enjoy a new early access title or full release, I simply refund it easily within 2 hours of game time. That's why I tend to buy more (small) titles on PC to be honest, as I know it is easy to refund, in case I don't like it enough.
 
NekoNeko

NekoNeko

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
18,447
MC saved a lot of people from picking up this game that was garbage at launch and patched up to be mediocre at best.
 
Dever

Dever

Member
Dec 25, 2019
5,345
Pretty eh comment... What if somebody thought the game just didn't look very interesting at release, then bought it at a reduced priced later, and loved it? Can they complain or be disappointed about no sequel being in the works?

"Well you didn't buy it at full price!!!"

Like, ok? Nobody has an obligation to buy your game if it doesn't look worth 60 dollars to them lol.
 
JuniperAndSage

JuniperAndSage

Member
Dec 27, 2019
6,067
Seattle
Nerun said:
I still have to say the game was unfairly reviewed and the only explanation I have is -> Reviewers did not spend enough time with it. Yes, the performance wasn't the best, but that was mostly the case for the last parts of the map/game and I'm sure that most reviewers never saw that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I looked at a bunch of the reviews yesterday, and most of them mentioned how long they had played, and/or that they had finished the game. Also, most of the negative reviews didn't spend time talking about the poor performance, but the terrible story, writing, characters, world building, and politics.
 
fourfourfun

fourfourfun

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,678
England
Yueezy said:
AAA industry is savage, and I definitely feel for devs but.. $70 is kind of high price point to convince majority of people to pay for a game even if they want to. For movies and shows, it is much more accessible but honestly I am not really sure how the 70 price will pan out. I will only wait and see.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I see it only going one way. Games are increasingly designed to earn money after you buy - so start expecting more games that make you have to work to enjoy them - they launch at $70, crash down asap after getting the launch cash in, get people in the pipeline. Standalone $70 titles will go away, because they are expected to follow the price crash and then cannot recoup costs or justify enough margin for a sequel.

Unless it is on Nintendo, where there prices are consistent.
 
M.Bluth

M.Bluth

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,242
It's pretty funny seeing the gulf in attitudes between this thread and the one about Schreire's report on DG2's fate.

"Oh how awful, why would Sony do that?!" vs "Fuck your shitty ass game!"

Anyway, personally I never liked Days Gone. It sucks for the people who liked it and the people who made it and wanted to work on another one. But DG2 not getting greenlit is the least surprising thing in gaming news for a while.

The topic of this thread is also not really controversial. I find it strange that anyone would dispute that good reviews and early success helps a franchise's future. And it's weird that someone would insist they're not buying your game until it's in a deep discount and is then surprised the publisher doesn't feel the project was successful enough.

This has been massively overblown.
 
BoxManLocke

BoxManLocke

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,158
France
Within Sony's FP catalogue from last gen Days Gone was one of the few that didn't have that one special thing that made it stand out from the dozens of third party games that come out every year.

That's why I'm not worried about stuff like Horizon or GoT sequels, even if they were flawed in some ways, they have have an extremely solid foundation to build on thanks to combat and atmosphere. GoW and TLoU are also franchises that excel in several areas.

Days Gone had a pretty world with mediocre exploration, decent shooting, a subpar story and just a couple of good characters. It's a pretty good game, but to reach the level of the rest of Sony's catalogue, to have that thing that really made it stand out, a return to the drawing board would have been necessary for a sequel. That would have meant another lenghty dev time with no certainty of ending up with a great game. So I can see why Sony would say no.

Even if I didn't like the second game, something like Gravity Rush would have deserved to live a lot more than Days Gone.
 
Castamere

Castamere

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,517
*shrug* I did buy it at full price. Ill throw the ball right back at them. They should have released paid dlc instead of a bunch of free updates.

How are people supposed to support a game after they get it at a reduced price or free on psplus? Its extremely unreasonable to expect them to buy it again. That's why you make dlc.
 
seroun

seroun

Member
Oct 25, 2018
4,464
If you didn't make a good enough game that would solicit a sequel.. why would u get a sequel?

Make a functioning game first, make a good game second, and if you can, make a great game third. If you get all that money and all that time and you do that.. then yeah, people are not gonna pay 60€ on that.
 
Shirkelton

Shirkelton

Member
Aug 20, 2020
5,976
Dever said:
Pretty eh comment... What if somebody thought the game just didn't look very interesting at release, then bought it at a reduced priced later, and loved it? Can they complain or be disappointed about no sequel being in the works?

"Well you didn't buy it at full price!!!"

Like, ok? Nobody has an obligation to buy your game if it doesn't look worth 60 dollars to them lol.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

They literally said nothing about an obligation.
 
MoosGoMoo

MoosGoMoo

Banned
Jan 27, 2021
717
I bought most games at £40 week 1.
I bought games I really wanted at £50 week 1.
I only bought I was massively hyped about at £55 week 1.
I won't buy any games for £60-70 at week 1.

The more expensive your games get, the less I'll be buying within the launch window or from retail rather than second hand, Sony.
 
Jonatron

Jonatron

Member
Apr 22, 2020
409
From Software is perhaps the only developer who may get a day 1 purchase from me this gen. Even then, reviews will have a bearing on whether I cave or not.

This guy's view is fucking insulting, particularly given the state of the game on launch.
 
MonadL

MonadL

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,888
I feel like he's speaking to the people who bought Days Gone either at a steep discount or waited until it hit PS+ yet are complaining about Sony not green lighting a sequel. Don't think any of this applies to anyone else.
 

Shroki

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,910
There are all kinds of problems with review aggregators but in the end, it comes down to the same thing.

People thought Days Gone was mediocre. Other people heard Days Gone was mediocre. Nobody wanted to invest $60 into a mediocre game. It sucks if you thought it was good or worth a sequel or whatever, but too many people didn't give af.
 

Imperfected

Member
Nov 9, 2017
11,737
JuniperAndSage said:
I looked at a bunch of the reviews yesterday, and most of them mentioned how long they had played, and/or that they had finished the game. Also, most of the negative reviews didn't spend time talking about the poor performance, but the terrible story, writing, characters, world building, and politics.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Okay well yes, all of those things are directly attributable to or responsibilities of the Creative Director, but...
 
KORNdog

KORNdog

Banned
Oct 30, 2017
8,001
People are obsessed with sales figures, but if ya'll are buying a game in droves when it's £3 in a PSN game, don't be surprised when the developer/publisher don't consider it a success.
 
CaviarMeths

CaviarMeths

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
10,655
Western Canada
Telling consumers to buy games for full price at launch or else no sequel just encourages consumers to buy fewer games. Play fewer games, take fewer risks, discover less. But I guess it makes sense for a publisher like Sony to have a vested interest in consumers convalescing all of their spending around 2-3 major titles per year. Lines up pretty squarely with Sony's output as a publisher.

Either way though, it's a pretty shit attitude for a developer to take to blame consumers for their games not being successful enough for their publisher. Blame marketing. Blame unreasonable publisher expectations. Blame your own subpar product. Don't blame the end user, as if we had any fucking control over any of this. Garbage ass take to blame the people who bought and played the game on their own time/budget considerations for simply not wanting a sequel badly enough.
 
Shoshi

Shoshi

Banned
Jan 9, 2018
1,661
Shroki said:
There are all kinds of problems with review aggregators but in the end, it comes down to the same thing.

People thought Days Gone was mediocre. Other people heard Days Gone was mediocre. Nobody wanted to invest $60 into a mediocre game. It sucks if you thought it was good or worth a sequel or whatever, but too many people didn't give af.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

As I think Ross and Jaffe mentioned in the previous Jaffe discussion - most reviewers never finished the game and misinterpreted the main-character who goes through a gradual change if you play it until the end.
This is a problem with AAA Open World games: They are very expensive and risky to make and you can't be sure it gets fairly reviewed.

But, DG suffered from technical bugs where many got solved and the game loading times even improved on PS4 which was remarkable. I wish Metacritic had a separate scoring system for the technical side, since bugs are often fixed, and if I ever care to read/watch a review I try to be cautious about negative criticism based on technical shortcomings which often gets fixed within 2 years after release and at tha time the game also goes on 50% sale.
 
Oghuz

Oghuz

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,897
I only bought the game after launch (and loved it!) because of the middling reviews and issues with technical performance.

I think I have the rights as a consumer to base my purchases on what I see and hear from users. May not always be correct (like in this case), but more often than not I tend to agree with the consensus opinion. So it is a safe way for me to spend money on gaming.
 
Ligero

Ligero

Member
Oct 27, 2017
159
I bought and loved Days Gone when it launched, paid full price. It was also a technical mess and deserved the reviews it got at the time. In Canada games are 90-100$ now, you're saying I should buy games on blind faith day 1, IN CASE I might like it eventually, in case I want it to get a sequel?

I genuinely want Days Gone to get a sequel, and it would likely be a Day 1 for me. But that logic is flawed, and isn't inclusive of people with even medium incomes. This isn't a cheap hobby, blasting people for getting things on sale is backwards. I wonder what the % of people playing Days Gone would be if it was only the ones who bought it at launch.
 
Dr. Doom

Dr. Doom

Banned
Oct 29, 2017
1,509
I won't ever buy any game full price, particularly as there has been a £20 increase this generation from £50 to £70.

The former is palatable, the latter is daylight robbery.
 
JuniperAndSage

JuniperAndSage

Member
Dec 27, 2019
6,067
Seattle
Shoshi said:
As I think Ross and Jaffe mentioned in the previous Jaffe discussion - most reviewers never finished the game and misinterpreted the main-character who goes through a gradual change if you play it until the end.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is not only untrue (many of the reviews I looked at mention the ending or having finished the game), but it's ridiculous to insist that people sit through another 30 or 40 hours of shitty characters, terrible writing, and broken gameplay cause the protagonist "really turns it around in the end."
 
RudiJ

RudiJ

Member
Oct 28, 2017
251
These seem like conflicting statements. Surely if all Sony cares about is Metacritic then even if it made millions more they wouldn't bother with a sequel. Either way, shaming your fans for not paying full price is pointless. The game already came out, it's already not getting a sequel. Players aren't going to go out and find some way to retroactively pay full price to Sony and even if they did it wouldn't matter to them now. The only way anything will change is if they whinge loud enough that Sony feels they'll be servicing a rabid fanbase.
 
ghostcrew

ghostcrew

The Shrouded Ghost
Administrator
Oct 27, 2017
30,349
u4hcbt9pp3u61.png


fttf704rp3u61.png


lol
 
Dragoon

Dragoon

Banned
Oct 31, 2017
11,231
GeoGonzo said:
I disagree both with that sentence and its wording. More importantly, shitty sentences can be both true and shitty: Like, if a friend has a child and you go "having children is among the worst things a human can do when fighting climate change" you'd be 100% right and 100% an asshole.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's not an asshole thing to say. You don't support a product necessary for it to survive and then cry about why said product is not being supported is a valid point.
 
The Emperor

The Emperor

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,790
RiteMana said:
I'm not sure why this is so controversial.

Yeah, he's right -- if the game doesn't sell well, of course it will be hard to justify a sequel. Used sales / discount sales don't really count toward the whole bottom line and profitability thing.

I think Days Gone simply wasn't good enough to warrant a full sequel, or so seemed the sales to those in charge of budgeting.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah it's like a no sh*t sherlock comment

Pretty obvious lol
 
Sabercrusader

Sabercrusader

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,189
Pretty ignorant opinion to have. There are plenty of people who don't have the income to spend full price on any game, let alone, say, 5 or so a year. What about people who didn't know about Days Gone and found it, say, 6 months later and thought it looked neat and "hey! It's on sale for $40!"? Not their fault they didn't know. Plenty of other reasons why it's ignorant, but that sums it up really.

He shouldn't be blaming people who buy games on sale or don't get around to playing a game until it's free. Sony should be the ones taking that into account when determining if a sequel is something they want to move forward with. While people buying games is what shows companies like Sony that the game is doing well, it's still ultimately up to Sony to determine if the game gets a sequel or not.
 
diablogg

diablogg

Member
Oct 31, 2017
3,267
Kind of a shitty comment. Not everyone could afford day $60 games, let alone this lovely little price hike we got going making games cost $70-$100 depending on where you live. Personally I don't intend on buying all but maybe 3-5 games a year at full price moving forward.
 
Einchy

Einchy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
42,659
SuperBanana said:
If you want people to buy games at full price then stop releasing them in a semi-broken state.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Did it actually ever get fixed? 'Cus I played it after all the major patches and it still had the worst FPS I've seen last gen with tons of dips into single digits, also, textures would break all the time so the game looked like it had textures set to low.

The texture thing was insane 'cus usually they'd load in a few seconds later but here they would just get stuck that way until I closed out the game.

I would've been pissed if I had paid $60 for that game, even more if I played it before all the "fixes".
 
Macross

Macross

Member
Nov 5, 2017
694
USA
Sony's first-party games cost a LOT to create. Initial sales indicate interest in the IP in general, i.e. level of excitement. If a game doesn't sell well initially, it is a higher risk to not sell well as a sequel and a greater risk of low return on investment. Yes, games cost more now, but is anyone not confident that the titles Sony did greenlight for sequels will sell well on day one despite the cost increase? It's just a business decision by a company looking to keep making money. If the first game didn't sell well enough at first for $60, why would they make a sequel that will sell for $70 and be that much more likely to sell worse than the first? I enjoyed DG, and would love a sequel, but Sony needs these high-cost first-party games to be blockbusters to maintain profits and continue to grow the brand. It has proven a winning strategy over and over. Should they have made another Kill Zone or was it smarter to stop and try something new, Horizon? Most of the time when a game sells ok they try something else now and considering what we have gotten because of that, I am ok with them doing so. I can't wait to see what they do instead of DG2.
 
nonoriri

nonoriri

Member
Apr 30, 2020
4,236
TBH, like I'm sure the low metacritic score didn't help but I'm sure if there had been something, anything, that had kept people talking about the game after it launched, the chance for a sequel would be there. I bet it's less the scores themselves but a strong correlation to the scores and word of mouth that they rely on to market the game and keep it in the public eye. The problem is there was nothing to capitalize on to bring people in when marketing the game post launch. No scores to brag about, no super unique mechanics, no particularly unique characters or plot progressions. Nothing even to write a thinkpiece or two about. Just... zero.
 
Hope

Hope

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
2,065
Macross said:
Sony's first-party games cost a LOT to create. Initial sales indicate interest in the IP in general, i.e. level of excitement. If a game doesn't sell well initially, it is a higher risk to not sell well as a sequel and a greater risk of low return on investment. Yes, games cost more now, but is anyone not confident that the titles Sony did greenlight for sequels will sell well on day one despite the cost increase? It's just a business decision by a company looking to keep making money. If the first game didn't sell well enough at first for $60, why would they make a sequel that will sell for $70 and be that much more likely to sell worse than the first? I enjoyed DG, and would love a sequel, but Sony needs these high-cost first-party games to be blockbusters to maintain profits and continue to grow the brand. It has proven a winning strategy over and over. Should they have made another Kill Zone or was it smarter to stop and try something new, Horizon? Most of the time when a game sells ok they try something else now and considering what we have gotten because of that, I am ok with them doing so. I can't wait to see what they do instead of DG2.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I mean that's in the us. The increased the price from 60 to 80 in half a gen Uncharted 4 was 60 even Digital) and iam pretty sure that i also paid 60 for GOW. That's a big ask. Their games are good but bloated to a level that less would be more. Srsly i would even prefer mts if they are fair.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.