Jump to content

“Don’t complain if a game doesn’t get a sequel if it wasn’t supported at launch”... Do you agree?


Carol

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, EcoShifter said:

He's completely right, as evidence often shows. It's the same reason why we're getting a completely and utterly unneeded remake of The Last of Us.

 

 

Why are you comparing yourself to groups of people. Your single support can never fund a sequel or convince the publishers to make a sequel. This is about the collective support from a large group of people, not a single person or a few people. (I also purchased the game Day 1.) The fate of Japan Studio and Gravity Rush is entirely peoples' fault for not supporting the game enough (plus some of Sony's not too good marketing). The series, as in both games separately, has had a problem selling even one million. I don't think GR2 even exceeded that much. Definitely not 2 million. "Everyone" knows about the original GR on its original debut platform, and yet even that version didn't make top 10 best selling Vita games list (US). It's a great series that deserves to be relevant, but people ignore it and don't support it. The same director you mentioned was still up for making more GR games, but it was impossible without people's support. His and the studio's fate is all on the people.

 

That's why the Days Gone's Director's actual point is ultimately true. Horizon Zero Dawn, Marvel Spider-Man, The Last of Us, God of War, etc, are all happening due to their tremendous launch support and positive reception (even though I've personally noticed several things Days Gone does better HZD but w/e).

No, it's a false equivalence. HZD, SpiderMan, GOW, TLOU got tremendous support and sold well because they were great games. They had fantastic production quality, reviewed well, and got great support after launch. The sequels are happening because they were successful.

 

The Day's Gone developer is basically stating that sales volume should determine quality, and the lack of sales is the reason there's no sequel - he's overlooking the product quality piece of the equation. DG would have sold more if it had been a better game - like the ones you listed above.

 

The fact that the product ultimately sold reasonably and got fixed to a reasonable level doesn't change the fact that it is a tier below the games you've listed. It's not a console selling AAA game. Doesn't mean it isn't a good game. It's just not a blockbuster.

 

If the sales don't warrant a sequel, because the profit isn't there, that's up to them. Saying the game should have sold better regardless of the quality of the product is a poor argument. He's blaming the consumer and avoiding personal responsibility here.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wish Bend Studio made something more appeasing then Days Gone, not saying it a bad game (I haven't played it I watched it).   Open World ? Zombie ? Linear ? I mean some zombie games fun like Dead Nation or siren blood curse, silent hill etc.

 

I did enjoy Golden Abyss but that's cause I like the artstyle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought maybe this was like an Onion article or just some other form or irony, but sadly it's an actual comment on the industry. Well, no, I'm not prepared to do that. Gaming has become a lot about sales the last few years, that's just the way it's gone. People build up a huge backlog or games since they're individually such potential time investments and no one likes missing a game they MIGHT play in the future when it's on sale. 

 

That's not specifically to the point, but it's also true that games are so buggy and unfinished on release, and there is such a trend toward either big game-changing patches or dlc's that, why should I necessarily trust the devs of a game to give me full price games on release? If that's paranoid thinking then oh well, seems like a lot of people feel that way at least in this thread. I have certain devs I trust, and part of that is because I've seen their release history and can judge the path their upcoming games might take. But I also am not that interested in most games coming out these days so I also just don't care to buy them at launch for 60-70 dollars, especially when AT LAUNCH they release 80-120 dollar versions of the game with promises of future content. At that point, the dev can eat me and I'll wait until the game is on sale.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, diskdocx said:

No, it's a false equivalence. HZD, SpiderMan, GOW, TLOU got tremendous support and sold well because they were great games. They had fantastic production quality, reviewed well, and got great support after launch. The sequels are happening because they were successful.

 

The Day's Gone developer is basically stating that sales volume should determine quality, and the lack of sales is the reason there's no sequel - he's overlooking the product quality piece of the equation. DG would have sold more if it had been a better game - like the ones you listed above.

 

The fact that the product ultimately sold reasonably and got fixed to a reasonable level doesn't change the fact that it is a tier below the games you've listed. It's not a console selling AAA game. Doesn't mean it isn't a good game. It's just not a blockbuster.

 

If the sales don't warrant a sequel, because the profit isn't there, that's up to them. Saying the game should have sold better regardless of the quality of the product is a poor argument. He's blaming the consumer and avoiding personal responsibility here.

 

It isn't. The point isn't about quality. The point is about what great support at launch does for a game's future. Regardless of DG quality, a sequel is only going to happen most times if the first game was supported really well. You and others have completely twisted his point and the actual topic. Not to mention, in regards to your point, there have been games that aren't great or as good as the ratings/reviews said that have gotten sequels when they shouldn't have. The argument you're presenting is faulty. Even with the problems it had at launch, a lot of reviewers, like IGN, weren't even authentic and fair to the overall game. Reviewers weren't finishing the game and giving it low ratings for certain ideas and lines said in the game, but I'd rather not get into that.

 

Quote

“I do have an opinion on something that your audience may find of interest, and it might piss some of them off,” Garvin replied. “If you love a game, buy it at fucking full price. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen gamers say ‘yeah, I got that on sale, I got it through PS Plus, whatever’.”

 

"I’m just saying, you don’t, but don’t complain if a game doesn’t get a sequel if it wasn’t supported at launch,” Garvin replied. “It’s like God of War got whatever number millions of sales at launch and, you know, Days Gone didn’t. [I’m] just speaking for me personally as a developer, I don’t work for Sony, I don’t know what the numbers are."
 

Context: He was referring to the first God of War,  the one made by David Jaffe the actual original director and host of the interview, not Cory Barlog's God of War.


“I can tell you that when we were doing [Syphon Filter] Dark Mirror [on PSP], we got so fucked on Dark Mirror because piracy was a thing and Sony wasn’t really caught up on what piracy was doing to sales."
 

“And we would show them torrents, a torrent site had 200,000 copies of Dark Mirror being downloaded. If I remember it right, the numbers could be wrong, but regardless, I was pissed about it then, I was like ‘this is money out of my pocket’."

 

So I think the uptick in engagement with the game is not as important as, did you buy the game at full price? Because if you did, then that’s supporting the developers directly.”

 

^. He has not said what he's been accused of, nor ignored what he was claimed to have. His point is clearly about two specific actions, one that leads to a sequel and one that doesn't. Days Gone, with the problems it had and has, still ended up becoming a hit and beloved by millions. Millions have accepted the game for what it looked to be and what it turned out to be, so he's still right in regards to main point regarding the fate of the next game.

Edited by EcoShifter
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, diskdocx said:

No, it's a false equivalence. HZD, SpiderMan, GOW, TLOU got tremendous support and sold well because they were great games. They had fantastic production quality, reviewed well, and got great support after launch. The sequels are happening because they were successful.

 

The Day's Gone developer is basically stating that sales volume should determine quality, and the lack of sales is the reason there's no sequel - he's overlooking the product quality piece of the equation. DG would have sold more if it had been a better game - like the ones you listed above.

 

The fact that the product ultimately sold reasonably and got fixed to a reasonable level doesn't change the fact that it is a tier below the games you've listed. It's not a console selling AAA game. Doesn't mean it isn't a good game. It's just not a blockbuster.

 

If the sales don't warrant a sequel, because the profit isn't there, that's up to them. Saying the game should have sold better regardless of the quality of the product is a poor argument. He's blaming the consumer and avoiding personal responsibility here.

I think there's some confusion, Bend Studios pitched a Days Gone 2 shortly after it released. It was Sony that said no. 

 

And then Bend was tasked instead to work on an uncharted 1 remake (that was canceled), then was put on a last of us 1 remake, which nobody asked for, and then they were able to leave that to naughty dog(or more accurately it was ripped away) They don't want to do these. They wanted to do another Days Gone. 

Edited by Dav9834
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only time I buy a game at launch is if the game itself is solid and the early reviews are reasonable. It's why I watch videos on YouTube of the gameplay done by real players, not "Journalists". But lately, I stopped paying full price for games due to my backlog, so I just wait for it to go on sale or PS Plus.

Edited by dakk55
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I think it’s good to support developers, I have little sympathy for the industry whining about people not buying games at launch.

 

I literally NEVER pre-order or buy games at launch. Why? Because in these modern times, games are constantly rushed and released before they are ready or in a finished state. Games are almost always plagued with problems at launch, whether it’s major stuff, bugs, or just balancing issues, and this means games often don’t reach their fully tested, playable state until a few months post-launch when several patches have been issued.

 

Ironically, Days Gone is actually the perfect example of this too. It is a phenomenal game and one of the very best exclusives PlayStation has ever seen in my opinion, but it’s reputation suffered horribly because it was a broken, buggy mess at launch and got completely savaged by the critics.

 

And it never recovered. Even now it still has a pretty mediocre critical rating and reputation, despite the fact that it gradually became a fan favourite and anybody who plays Days Gone for the first time nowadays consistently says it’s one of the most fun games they’ve ever played.

 

If these companies want people like me to start buying games at launch for full price, they need to fix the rampant problems plaguing the industry and not putting out shitty, broken products that don’t reflect the ones they promised. Until that day I’m saving my money.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would never blindly buy a new game on launch. I'm always that kind of person who rather watch the first impressions and see how the games perform. If everything is all well, then I can probably buy it later, but never on launch. I dodged a big bullet with Cyberpunk 2077 and CD Project was know to be a company that the costumers could trust and look how that turned out. 

 

It's really hard these days to give a developer full trust that a game is gonna even function properly or that it will not have some kind of monetary scheme behind it. But if your game is well received, people will find a way to support the creators.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's just the worst opinion.

 

Makes him sound like an entitled prick who thinks he deserves people's money just for putting a game out, whether or not it's actually good. He even acknowledges in the interview that people won't know if they want a sequel until they buy the first, but he wants them to do it anyway. 

 

Doesn't realise his own shortcomings and instead blames the people who supported his game, because they didn't support him enough or not in the correct way. The things he's talking about are hurdles every game faces on the way to getting a sequel. Maybe the reason people didn't pay at launch is because he didn't create a product people wanted to pay that much for.

 

I'm not sure what point he thought he was making, but it's just made him look bitter and inconsiderate to his customers' circumstances.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, EcoShifter said:

 

It isn't. The point isn't about quality. The point is about what great support at launch does for a game's future. Regardless of DG quality, a sequel is only going to happen most times if the first game was supported really well. You and others have completely twisted his point and the actual topic. Not to mention, in regards to your point, there have been games that aren't great or as good as the ratings/reviews said that have gotten sequels when they shouldn't have. The argument you're presenting is faulty. Even with the problems it had at launch, a lot of reviewers, like IGN, weren't even authentic and fair to the overall game. Reviewers weren't finishing the game and giving it low ratings for certain ideas and lines said in the game, but I'd rather not get into that.

 

 

^. He has not said what he's been accused of, nor ignored what he was claimed to have.

i understand what you're saying, and I've read the article. It still comes across as whining. I was not aware that he was referencing the first GoW, article doesn't make that clear. I totally get his point - if a game doesn't sell well, it isn't getting a sequel. He's still saying if a game doesn't sell well, it's the consumers fault, they should have bought it. The fact that a game can no longer develop a following over time is unfortunate. That's an industry shortcoming.

 

At the end of the day though, if a game doesn't sell well, it's generally because the quality isn't there, or at least the game didn't captivate the consumer. That sucks - but then say the game won't be getting a sequel because the original game wasn't successful enough. He can lament the fact that games no longer have the luxury of time to build a following. But he should be blaming the publishers for that, not lashing out at the consumer.

38 minutes ago, Dav9834 said:

I think there's some confusion, Bend Studios pitched a Days Gone 2 shortly after it released. It was Sony that said no. 

 

And then Bend was tasked instead to work on an uncharted 1 remake (that was canceled), then was put on a last of us 1 remake, which nobody asked for, and then they were able to leave that to naughty dog(or more accurately it was ripped away) They don't want to do these. They wanted to do another Days Gone. 

Then ultimately his beef should be with Sony. It sounds like a sequel would probably have the potential to be more successful than the original. It's a shame that games will no longer have the opportunity to build a following over time. Ultimately none of that is the consumers fault. Threatening your customers to buy the game or else is unlikely to gain much sympathy or change purchasing patterns

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's possible for a game to be slow burn hit and get a sequel later on but even then, the sales have got to be pretty damn good for that to happen. If you release a game that's broken as hell and do little to fix the problem, it will tank and you can kiss any sequel goodbye. Days Gone is an ok game but even after several patches, it's still very buggy and the frame-rate is awful so any sequel would have to blow me out of the water for me to pick it up.

 

I rarely by games at launch these days, especially AAA titles, because I've been burnt way too many times in recent years so reserve that honour for the titles that have really caught my eye and I have a good feeling about.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bet the same people who say they won't buy games day one will be first in line screaming fuck Sony and Jim Ryan if they were to ever shut down this studio or merge them with another more successful studio due to lackluster sales. 

 

Not saying you should blindly pre order and buy everything day one but if the devs put out a good game that you're interested in and you have the means, why not support them at launch? 

 

I personally wait for reviews before deciding wether to pre order a game that interest me or not but I'll agree that I never buy them day one just for a potential sequel. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They only made three portable games in the last 15 years before Days Gone. Two of them based on an established IP of a different studio.

 

How could anyone assume that their new IP was worth a 60$ price tag on launch with mediocre reviews and a long list of bugs?

Edited by proud2bNs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MandA60VISE said:

How would I know I want a sequel until I've played the game? If I'm uncertain I'd like the game why would I buy it at launch for full price? It just screams that someone is blaming the consumers when their product wasn't as successful as they wanted it to be.

Was going to comment this but I'll just second what you've said. You cant always expect people to drop $60 or more on a title that they don't know they'll enjoy. Maybe they pick it up when its discounted and decide they really like it, and would want a sequel. 

I certainly don't have the money to buy EVERY new release at full price just on the off chance I might want a sequel for a certain game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t agree.

 

I think there is some merit to the idea of “If you want a sequel, buy the game at full price” - i.e. don’t wait for a sale, support the dev by paying full whack for it - but even then, I think that applies only to smaller devs and indie games.

 

There are a small handful of games and studios I will deliberately pay full price for, and buy whatever dlc they do, to support them, but it really is pretty small - and they only stay on that list by being consistently good.

 

Buying at launch is usually a bad idea though - reviews are often not out, and most games need a patch or two after being released into the wild before they can put their best foot forward

 

Edited by DrBloodmoney
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is dumb for more than a few reasons.

1. I have to drop $60 (or however much) on a game I haven't played yet. And if I play it and don't like it, I probably wouldn't buy a sequel for any price.

2. Sony and other publishers tend to have a lot of their games get permanent price cuts in a year or so. Not to mention some good sales before then. This isn't Nintendo where a lot of their games have a normal price of $59.99 for years and years.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DEI2EK said:

People have bought over 100 million copies of GTA V and there’s still no sequel to that

 

this is an amazing point. Elder Scrolls Skyim is an example, although we know we are finally getting another release in the series. 

 

GTA V will have existed for 3 console generations, raked in probably a disgusting amount of money, and they keep the wheels spinning because its generating so much money for Rockstar, why stop now? Yet demand for GTA VI is there, and its growing, so this definitely shows that just because we want something and spend our money towards it, doesn't mean we will get it.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...