I know you live to contradict me, lol, but try reading it again.
I don't think about you at all, actually, thanks. I was just pointing out that your post doesn't make logical sense. Maybe you worded it badly? Who knows?
I know you live to contradict me, lol, but try reading it again.
You can sink hundreds of hours into any activity. That means absolutely nothing. And i have nothing against social or MP gaming. But knowingly launching with a lack of game content after promises and assurances of more, and half baked development cycles arent good for anyone. especially when its not even under the guise of early access or a reduced price.
Your not a PR firm, stop acting like it.
I don't think about you at all, actually, thanks. I was just pointing out that your post doesn't make logical sense. Maybe you worded it badly? Who knows?
I thought that was me being nice as well :(
And that part of the comment wasn't actually directed at you by the way :)
True, but with gamepass its a valid question. Before gamepass when it could be slightly inflated only by multiple accounts or account sharing that was a small enough number to not he significant. But adding gamepass to that, especially when its free for most people can change that number significantly.
Nah, its pretty simple, and it makes perfect sense when you read it correctly. Why don't you just skip to reporting me again like you did when my nickname for Fortnite got your panties in a bunch?
I didn't report you. If you felt like your banning was unjustified, take it up with moderation, not me. Thank you.
Calling other users idiots is not a way to prop up any argument you may have.I thought that was me being nice as well :(
And that part of the comment wasn't actually directed at you by the way :)
Retort???? I toke bloodborne coz was the first exclusive after some bad ones ps4 users were hungry and the devs behind it were pretty importants just like rare and Ms situation.. mm...the point is that I'm sure that SoT also being still pretty barebone sold in that range ..that I think is good also 2 millions of players in one week is really really goodI have no idea why you've listed some PS exclusives as a retort, especially relatively niche ones at that, but Bloodborne sold 389k in its first NPD month, which is double what Quantum Break did in its first two...
That's good to hear. Rare knows what they need to do now.They acknowledge the mixed reviews in the last video. I'm sure they are very aware of the criticism.
How much did QB sold LTD?No their IP the bar is Quantum Break.
Your mistaken is hasn't. 2 million user have played it including gamepass subscriber. We don't know how much it sold but it is outpacing Quantum Break.
Wtf is this post ?Transformers movies made billions. These numbers for Sea of Nothing just prove that quality often times doesn't matter.
If they needed reviews to tell them this game is light on content and activities that's a problem.
100 % this. Great post.Single player games are much like a commodity at this point. There are hundreds of releases each month, the experience is often, but not always, fully realized at launch. There is a certified value proposition in determining the time it took to play through all the content, the variation in the types of content experienced, and the cost to acquire the game. In evaluating commodities, it makes sense to evaluate a game in how it compares to other options because if the value proposition is poor for a game, there are so many other replacement options that it make sense to choose an experience that provides more value.
Coop experiences like SoT are far more unique in the market right now. Reviews by journalists and people in this thread that are dissapointed in the value proposition and their argued lack of content seem to imply that money would be better spent on a competing experience that offered more value; however, for cooperative MP, the amount of competing experiences is so small, there is no obvious replacement experience to substitute for a competing cooperative experience. Destiny is another example of this. The game gets a ton of grief for various systems, but it remains popular because competing Destiny experiences aren't readily available on the market.
For a more nascent gaming genre, it's possible, even likely, that the creation of a compelling cooperative gaming experience is FAR more important in judging a title's success than the amount of content, as creation of that unique experience carries more inherent risk, and is foundation for more publisher/developer reward. Many reviews of this game seem to support that the creation of the cooperative pirate experience in SoT is fun, and there is a foundation for even more compelling experiences going forward. For this genre, where there are far fewer comparable experiences, why isn't this enough? Why does a game seeking to create a new type of cooperative experience need to be judged on metrics catering to a fully developed commodity genre.
It's possible that 5-10 years in the future where this genre is more fully fleshed out with options and choices, critiques such as those levied at Sea of Thieves this week would have validity as gamers could choose richer existing experiences over what Sea of Thieves has to offer, but until those experiences exists, claiming I should play God of War over Sea of Thieves because its a better value proposition is disingenuous for those of us who aren't looking for that experience.
I'm sure it's been mentioned, but Mr Greenberg clarified it does not include Gamepass numbers only retail and digital.
He also said a 500k increase in gold subscriptions.
I'm glad it's doing well, it's lots of fun. And it's worth mentioning that the patch has removed the screen tearing too.
But if it is doing so well why wouldnt they?
Good job on Rare, I am enjoying the game and it's non progressive system.
I'm another note, will we continue to see gamepass being the scape goat for every new MS release? I wonder what percentage of active users burned through their free preview on this game and if it'll effect the next gamepass game numbers.
SoT was the wild card. SoD is an actual, anticipated, acclaimed follow up. Gamepass will be fine.
Single player games are much like a commodity at this point. There are hundreds of releases each month, the experience is often, but not always, fully realized at launch. There is a certified value proposition in determining the time it took to play through all the content, the variation in the types of content experienced, and the cost to acquire the game. In evaluating commodities, it makes sense to evaluate a game in how it compares to other options because if the value proposition is poor for a game, there are so many other replacement options that it make sense to choose an experience that provides more value.
Coop experiences like SoT are far more unique in the market right now. Reviews by journalists and people in this thread that are dissapointed in the value proposition and their argued lack of content seem to imply that money would be better spent on a competing experience that offered more value; however, for cooperative MP, the amount of competing experiences is so small, there is no obvious replacement experience to substitute for a competing cooperative experience. Destiny is another example of this. The game gets a ton of grief for various systems, but it remains popular because competing Destiny experiences aren't readily available on the market.
For a more nascent gaming genre, it's possible, even likely, that the creation of a compelling cooperative gaming experience is FAR more important in judging a title's success than the amount of content, as creation of that unique experience carries more inherent risk, and is foundation for more publisher/developer reward. Many reviews of this game seem to support that the creation of the cooperative pirate experience in SoT is fun, and there is a foundation for even more compelling experiences going forward. For this genre, where there are far fewer comparable experiences, why isn't this enough? Why does a game seeking to create a new type of cooperative experience need to be judged on metrics catering to a fully developed commodity genre.
It's possible that 5-10 years in the future where this genre is more fully fleshed out with options and choices, critiques such as those levied at Sea of Thieves this week would have validity as gamers could choose richer existing experiences over what Sea of Thieves has to offer, but until those experiences exists, claiming I should play God of War over Sea of Thieves because its a better value proposition is disingenuous for those of us who aren't looking for that experience.
This is the whole; "Gamers are stupid and even if they're having fun they need to be reminded its a bad game" thing.
A typical Microsoft exclusive thread response, if you have nothing else to lose.
Quantum Break was fun but single player only. SP is super boring to me (still fun just refuse to pay $60 for single player games)Makes me even more upset that people didn't buy Sunset Overdrive and Quantum Break.
Nobody will ever convince you that they believe the game is fun, or a worthwhile purchase. That much is clear.They are selling the game for 60 dollars after 4 years, and still have a majority of the content on the cutting room floor. THere is no excuse.
Single player games are much like a commodity at this point. There are hundreds of releases each month, the experience is often, but not always, fully realized at launch. There is a certified value proposition in determining the time it took to play through all the content, the variation in the types of content experienced, and the cost to acquire the game. In evaluating commodities, it makes sense to evaluate a game in how it compares to other options because if the value proposition is poor for a game, there are so many other replacement options that it make sense to choose an experience that provides more value.
Coop experiences like SoT are far more unique in the market right now. Reviews by journalists and people in this thread that are dissapointed in the value proposition and their argued lack of content seem to imply that money would be better spent on a competing experience that offered more value; however, for cooperative MP, the amount of competing experiences is so small, there is no obvious replacement experience to substitute for a competing cooperative experience. Destiny is another example of this. The game gets a ton of grief for various systems, but it remains popular because competing Destiny experiences aren't readily available on the market.
For a more nascent gaming genre, it's possible, even likely, that the creation of a compelling cooperative gaming experience is FAR more important in judging a title's success than the amount of content, as creation of that unique experience carries more inherent risk, and is foundation for more publisher/developer reward. Many reviews of this game seem to support that the creation of the cooperative pirate experience in SoT is fun, and there is a foundation for even more compelling experiences going forward. For this genre, where there are far fewer comparable experiences, why isn't this enough? Why does a game seeking to create a new type of cooperative experience need to be judged on metrics catering to a fully developed commodity genre.
It's possible that 5-10 years in the future where this genre is more fully fleshed out with options and choices, critiques such as those levied at Sea of Thieves this week would have validity as gamers could choose richer existing experiences over what Sea of Thieves has to offer, but until those experiences exists, claiming I should play God of War over Sea of Thieves because its a better value proposition is disingenuous for those of us who aren't looking for that experience.
Single player games are much like a commodity at this point. There are hundreds of releases each month, the experience is often, but not always, fully realized at launch. There is a certified value proposition in determining the time it took to play through all the content, the variation in the types of content experienced, and the cost to acquire the game. In evaluating commodities, it makes sense to evaluate a game in how it compares to other options because if the value proposition is poor for a game, there are so many other replacement options that it make sense to choose an experience that provides more value.
Coop experiences like SoT are far more unique in the market right now. Reviews by journalists and people in this thread that are dissapointed in the value proposition and their argued lack of content seem to imply that money would be better spent on a competing experience that offered more value; however, for cooperative MP, the amount of competing experiences is so small, there is no obvious replacement experience to substitute for a competing cooperative experience. Destiny is another example of this. The game gets a ton of grief for various systems, but it remains popular because competing Destiny experiences aren't readily available on the market.
For a more nascent gaming genre, it's possible, even likely, that the creation of a compelling cooperative gaming experience is FAR more important in judging a title's success than the amount of content, as creation of that unique experience carries more inherent risk, and is foundation for more publisher/developer reward. Many reviews of this game seem to support that the creation of the cooperative pirate experience in SoT is fun, and there is a foundation for even more compelling experiences going forward. For this genre, where there are far fewer comparable experiences, why isn't this enough? Why does a game seeking to create a new type of cooperative experience need to be judged on metrics catering to a fully developed commodity genre.
It's possible that 5-10 years in the future where this genre is more fully fleshed out with options and choices, critiques such as those levied at Sea of Thieves this week would have validity as gamers could choose richer existing experiences over what Sea of Thieves has to offer, but until those experiences exists, claiming I should play God of War over Sea of Thieves because its a better value proposition is disingenuous for those of us who aren't looking for that experience.
Well in the case of Sea of Thieves, it is a unique multiplayer experience. As a matter of fact there are a lot of multiplayer games attempting to make their experiences unique.Everyone and their mothers are doing multiplayer games and someone here is arguing they are unique.
Everyone and their mothers are doing multiplayer games and someone here is arguing they are unique.
We got people here saying that yet another undercooked content lacking fullpriced game is the greatest thing ever.
Well in the case of Sea of Thieves, it is a unique multiplayer experience. As a matter of fact there are a lot of multiplayer games attempting to make their experiences unique.
I think it'd be a bit more fair if you quoted the person you're mentioning.
I guess it depends on what do you mean by the experience? If it's the setting then sure, there aren't many pirate games, however, if you just mean playing together with friends then any multiplayer game will fit the bill.What is your current Sea of Thieves alternative for a similar experience?
Sure if we can categorize all games with an online component as the same.Everyone and their mothers are doing multiplayer games and someone here is arguing they are unique.