I was there. I saw that, and I was hurting inside.
Sony...pls
-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Does anyone else think that too many PlayStation sequels in development played a role in Sony passing on Days Gone 2?
- Thread starter SilverX
- Start date
I was there. I saw that, and I was hurting inside.
Sony...pls
I'm more excited about them getting a shot with a larger team on another IP. I image if that does well they can make whatever they want. A later in the gen DG2 sounds better given some of the stuff I would like to see like bigger zombie hordes and more creative ways to take them down.
I think that Days Gone was probably greenlit before the original Last of Us took off. Days Gone was greenlit in 2012/2013, and TLOU released in 2013.
After Sony saw they had a hit with TLOU, they probably always felt that it didn't make much sense for Days Gone to exist. It probably required a phenomenal reception to sustain itself as its own series.
You can't lump this with Gravity Rush 2. Days Gone was played by more than 5 times as many players as Gravity Rush 2. It's not as popular as Horizon but it's certainly no Gravity Rush either. It sold well.
After Sony saw they had a hit with TLOU, they probably always felt that it didn't make much sense for Days Gone to exist. It probably required a phenomenal reception to sustain itself as its own series.
You can't lump this with Gravity Rush 2. Days Gone was played by more than 5 times as many players as Gravity Rush 2. It's not as popular as Horizon but it's certainly no Gravity Rush either. It sold well.
no idea why sony passed, but as someone that enjoyed days gone well enough, i dont want a sequel to it. dg was a cool, creative take on dealing with zombie hordes, but i hope they've been pushed to try something fresh. they languished making boring syphon filter games for much too long, it's good they're not going to be doing the same with days gone.
IĀ“d rather take Days Gone 2 than any of the Naughty Dog sequels. PS4 was the first console for which they didnĀ“t create anything new, and in a way thatĀ“s when Sony started to loose my interest. Personally I think both Uncharted and TLoU peaked on PS3, but regardless, I think anything new would have been more interesting than those sequels. So, to me, the big issue is the rumor they are making more Uncharted and more TLoU. I can see how it makes more sense than Days Gone from a money perspective, but does it really when you look at the growth of ND games over the generations? Imagine if they hadnĀ“t made Uncharted 4, instead TLoU 2 plus a new franchise on PS4 and now on PS5 they could put TLoU to rest until PS6 and instead create something new again and bring a groundbreaing Uncharted game after a much longer break, or make a sequel to the new PS4 franchise.
In general, I think ideally studios would create something new before making a sequel to their last game. WeĀ“d get more fresh ideas, better IPs and better sequels. Instead, the model is to burn out a franchise with several games in a row and then create something new. So, going back to Days Gone 2, to me the problem isnĀ“t that they arenĀ“t making a sequel but rather that if they donĀ“t make it now, they never will.
In general, I think ideally studios would create something new before making a sequel to their last game. WeĀ“d get more fresh ideas, better IPs and better sequels. Instead, the model is to burn out a franchise with several games in a row and then create something new. So, going back to Days Gone 2, to me the problem isnĀ“t that they arenĀ“t making a sequel but rather that if they donĀ“t make it now, they never will.
love the revisionist history that's been going on with days gone
no, days gone doesn't have the best reputation. Make another game of course, build off that, but it doesn't need to be a sequel
no, days gone doesn't have the best reputation. Make another game of course, build off that, but it doesn't need to be a sequel
This was basically the attitude towards Days Gone since it was announced up to release, and something I am pretty sure I thought too. There were just a lot of surface level similarities and Last of Us was proven while Days Gone was not.
OP
OP
I can't see it not being a reason. They have so many hotly anticipated sequels from the PS4 era that it definitely was something they took notice of standing in the way of getting internal first party new IPs out in the PS5's early years. And those are crucial to Sony, and passing on Days Gone 2 somewhat fast tracks releasing their next eventful IP launch compared to their other studios still deep into working on followups to some of the most successful games Sony has ever made.
Nah, Bend was a much riskier bet than Naughty Dog in terms of which franchise was going to take off. What I think is that Sony saw Days Gone as more of a test run for Bend and it was completely satisfactory with sales. The only problem is that they need some new franchises and are in no need of building upon Days Gone with The Last of Us being such a priority. So I think they just wanted them to move onto something new and fresh for PS5 given the amount of sequels they have already coming
Yeah, likewise.
Also, Days Gone was a better game than Spider-Man. Don't @ me.
Of course not.
Highest chance it didn't get any sequel was just like the Bloomberg article said:
Highest chance it didn't get any sequel was just like the Bloomberg article said:
- Mixed receptions.
- The first game was long development time.
- Over budget.
- Meh launch sales.
Well, they had an obvious sequel tease at the end of Days Gone. They clearly had more ideas they wanted to explore.
If the game was successful, I think it's obvious?
Unless they don't want to strike while the iron is hot...? š¤·
It's definitely strange to see, pretty sure Days Gone wasn't liked that much even here, it was a formulaic forgettable open world game, it reviewed poorly and it wasn't anything special, so I don't understand how are people expecting a sequel, especially when you compared it to Sony's other AAA juggernaut like Spiderman, Last of Us 2, Horizon and God of War. Yeah, I'm sure some of you enjoyed Days Gone more than those above, but that's not what the general consensus tells us critically-wise and sales-wise.
I'd rather see Sony try a new IP than a Days Gone sequel a(also no post apocalyptic zombi setting, we already have plenty of those).
I mean I don't really want Uncharted 5 but I want Days Gone 2 even less...
It's definitely not a game I simply want "more of the same" of.
I'm okay with the IP taking a break. Maybe a few years down the road they can revisit it again with some fresh ideas.
It's definitely not a game I simply want "more of the same" of.
I'm okay with the IP taking a break. Maybe a few years down the road they can revisit it again with some fresh ideas.
Deleted member 59
Guest
I think it would of been cool if they pitched a DayZ style game using the same map and assets. It looks great on PS5 and at 60fps. It could have a relatively quick turnaround without a colossal AAA budget and it's something that I think would work again.
I actually have a gut feeling that's what's going to happen MP fractions mode, and that's why it's taking a while and will be stand-alone.
I actually have a gut feeling that's what's going to happen MP fractions mode, and that's why it's taking a while and will be stand-alone.
Some people want to rewrite history.
I seen a tweet from Lucy O'Brien saying it wasn't a bad game, her review was savage and it was obvious at the time she had not played the whole way through.
In a way, maybe.
But the reality is that we knew what gets greenlit and what isnt with Shawn Layden for a while in terms of larger budget projects at least.
His strategy has been referred to as "First, Best or Must" for what their portfolio should have.
You could argue that the original Days Gone falls into "First" because it was a first major big budget AAA project for the studio, but given that the game didnt make a large splash and it wasnt well received, Shawn didnt think the sequel falls into either of the 3 categories.
But the reality is that we knew what gets greenlit and what isnt with Shawn Layden for a while in terms of larger budget projects at least.
His strategy has been referred to as "First, Best or Must" for what their portfolio should have.
You could argue that the original Days Gone falls into "First" because it was a first major big budget AAA project for the studio, but given that the game didnt make a large splash and it wasnt well received, Shawn didnt think the sequel falls into either of the 3 categories.
What Sony cares about the most is those Game of the Year awards and Days Gone wasn't getting any. Sales may be good but we are at a point when it's not about sales anymore. The stakes are so big that if you don't knock it out if the park at first try like Sucker Punch did with Ghost or Santa Monica with God of War it's better to call it quits and try again.
Jasons article basically states some of the reasons why it was not greenlit and that is without us, the consumers, even knowing what was the content of the pitch.
This!
This!
I know some people eventually changed their minds but it is amusing to see people wagging their finger at Sony for killing the sequel.
Less we forget the banner for the review thread was crying Jordan face shopped onto Deacon and a moped. People were dog piling on this game hard. People posting the wedding vow cutscene and saying it was the worst dialogue they've ever heard despite not knowing the context and actually thinking the characters were being serious.
www.resetera.com
Less we forget the banner for the review thread was crying Jordan face shopped onto Deacon and a moped. People were dog piling on this game hard. People posting the wedding vow cutscene and saying it was the worst dialogue they've ever heard despite not knowing the context and actually thinking the characters were being serious.
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
Last edited:
I mean even after patches the game was mediocre at best. Not just gameplay-wise, but also technically.
I'm shocked that Sony didn't want to renew a game based on a generic universe, which got middling reviews (despite being a 1st party title, mind you).
It was a AAA title, which likely had a big budget and in the end may not have had the sales they hoped for... Neither the critical reception.
It was a AAA title, which likely had a big budget and in the end may not have had the sales they hoped for... Neither the critical reception.
Loved Days Gone, dont think I put the game down within the first week, loved the story, setting, zombie hordes and the characters.
Annoys me we aren't getting a sequel, annoys me even more knowing the potential after that ending.
Annoys me we aren't getting a sequel, annoys me even more knowing the potential after that ending.
I think it was mainly down to the development problems and mixed reception more than anything.
Shame because the patched game is actually pretty good and it's definitely better than some made out, even if it's not perfect. I really enjoyed the game by the end.
Hopefully one day they will give Days Gone another go because a sequel has a lot of potential.
Shame because the patched game is actually pretty good and it's definitely better than some made out, even if it's not perfect. I really enjoyed the game by the end.
Hopefully one day they will give Days Gone another go because a sequel has a lot of potential.
I don't see how what you're saying here, refutes anything I said.
When they greenlit Days Gone, TLOU wasn't already a hit. It wasn't a known quantity. So it makes sense, that the comparison between those franchises would only occur after Days Gone 2 was being pitched.
I don't disagree with the idea that Days Gone was Sony wanting to give Bend a chance on a bigger project, that much is obvious, and yes, they want them to move on to something new. I don't really see any disagreement here.
One thing I would say, is that with the relatively medicore reception that Days Gone got, I don't see why Sony would have strong confidence in Bend leading another IP. If anything Days Gone found popularity because of its theme and likely it's closeness to an existing popular franchise (The Last of Us). People are keen on open world zombie games, and I think that setting sold people on Days Gone in spite of a fairly middling critical reception.
I wouldn't have a tonne of confidence that Bend would be able to live up to the expectations set by franchises like Uncharted. If anything, it feels as though Days Gone 2 would have been a safer bet for the studio. Perhaps diversity within their portfolio is important for Sony. After all, their is a lot of commentary suggesting their exclusives are too similar, and while I generally disagree, it makes sense for them to be at least thematically diverse (unlike the contrast between Days Gone and TLOU).
Just because something turns a profit doesn't mean it was worth the investment. No where was it stated what Sony's expected profit was and what level of profit sony expected in return.
As let's say the game made 5 million, if it makes 5 million and 1 dollar it's making a profit. However, if Sony is expecting 10 million from it then it made a profit but didn't meet expectations. Sony isn't running a charity. The investment has to be worth the return and clearly, it wasn't.
I actually disagree because the nature of this medium tends to allow sequels to be better than their forbearers, unlike passive mediums such as film and literature.
Of course not every game requires a sequel but there are a staggering amount of brilliant games over the years that are sequels and might not have come to fruition otherwise. Actually, this medium is largely built on quality sequels when you really start to examine it.
I'd play a sequel but I'd rather they put their experience making Days Gone towards a fresh IP instead.
You are absolutely correct and one of the chief problems is that people have a pronounced misunderstanding of budget, sales and profit and assume something being 'profitable' means the venture was worthwhile.
When a publisher invests tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars into development and advertising and gets back a paltry sum, I can't really blame them for being hesitant to greenlight a sequel. Days Gone wasn't an explosive seller nor did it do all that well critically so from Sony's standpoint there's probably not much to build on with a sequel, which would invariably be very expensive and very time consuming.
no. zombies + low MC for a 1st-party prestige title. i say this as someone who really enjoyed DG and got the plat
they may return eventually (with a more compelling pitch) or, who knows, we might like bend's new IP better. in any case, i don't think this is a surprising development or mystery that needs solving
they may return eventually (with a more compelling pitch) or, who knows, we might like bend's new IP better. in any case, i don't think this is a surprising development or mystery that needs solving
Don't think they care about the number of sequels, as much as the type of game. Days Gone alongside TloU2 was already too much, and then Days Gone 2 with focus on multiplayer alongside TloU2 multiplayer that's now being pushed as a separate game and TloU1 remake might be what pushed them to say do something else.
Probably too similar to tlou. I would take a sequel to days gone over another one of those easily though. Oh well, thems the breaks.
No. If anything it was their pitch itself that made Sony pass on it. If you're going to pitch a project, especially after what happened with the first game it better be damn good.
Also this:
They probably only made enough money to fund the patches and the updates that the game has gotten really.
Also this:
They probably only made enough money to fund the patches and the updates that the game has gotten really.
I think it's more that they wanted to give Bend another shot at a new IP that hopefully works out better for them in terms of time to finish and the outcome.
Edge: This is "State of Decay" without the stakes, "The Last of Us" without Naughty Dog's storytelling chops, and the most generic, overlong open-world game around.
I don't know how Sony reads this and says, "greenlight the sequel immediately!"
- 7+/10 overall.
- How long were Horizon Zero Dawn, Dreams or Ghost of Tsuhima in development?
- "Over budget" while being developed by a team of ~45 people in its first development years (using the Unreal Engine)
- "Meh launch sales" while it sold ~850k in the US alone after 9 days.
Yeah, nah.
Last edited:
