I think that at this point it's impossible to compare brand power by raw sales with game pass. PS4 games will always sell more because people are subbed to game pass and get it as part of the sub. It's just a different world now.
Yeah but you're excluding ALL halo products. You're missing the toys and partnerships.
Hard disagree. You ask anyone on here about "more players" vs raw sales and everyone on here will rag on you if 40 million players were on halo infinite with game pass out there
No, we would have to let go of ResolutionGate for next gen and that will never happen
well, the thread title said something about countering, so my wild guess was that this implied kind of a competition, and therefore a question of winning between sony and microsoft. maybe i overreacted. sorry.
I think people automatically assuming halo is as big as it was once are taking things for granted as well.
Its not noteworthy as it was because of what they did with halo 5. There is no guarantee that halo infinite will be good. It will sell decently but I definitely don't think it will be the seller you and some others are saying
Dark Cloud BOTW-style will happen according to 20th anniversary title but I doubt it will be ready for launch when they started last year after Ni no Kuni 2. I bet something they have had in development for a long time but moved to PS5 without anyone noticed it.
I was responding to that one dude. He talks of selling products and whatever as it pertains to what branding is. Toya are part of branding. That was my point
Also Halo will be supported as a Gaas, skins, Cosmetics, special events.... This throughout the gen. The Last of Us 2 will have a multiplayer, but for how long it will live.
This has nothing to do with the ways in which total player count is not a valid metric for analysis. Games pass could be helping games like Sea of Thieves sell better than anticipated but the game likely will still have a vastly higher number of "total players" than copies sold or even downloaded as they count individual accounts on the same system as a unique player. It's not a reliable metric for determining sales or Games Pass subscription.
Total player count is not engagement. Especially with these low costs of entry you're going to get a lot of people trying a game out and then bouncing right off it. That's not engagement.
there are so many different possible metrics that you can interpret and weigh in every kind of sense that the question if a project recouped and was worth or not it can only be answered by infos given directly from the console companies. compared to that, npd is a transparancy paradise.
It's a bold new world Snyder. Master Chief is bigger than Spiderman and profitability no longer matters. We woke up in the twilight zone.
I read the previous entries about different metrics and i agree that there's a blue ocean of delicious data out there. it should be so much fun to mess around there. is a game that attracted many new players who, in the end, did not finish it (because it was mostly shiny crap), but stayed in the subscription system, a success?
that's what they meant with "the netflix of gaming".
What you are describing is engagement metrics. I was spelling out how total player count is essentially a useless metric whereas engagement metrics (concurrent, active, retention etc) are actually meaningful metrics to track and determine success by. Total player count means essentially nothing when the cost/barriers to entry have been almost entirely eliminated.
Yes Sandella is just great like that. Unlike his awful aunt Sindel. She's the worst.
This is why you're the best. Bite sized distilled nuggets of truth coated with the sharp sweetness of humor. <3
