Carol

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

184 posts in this topic

Bend have been treated unfairly in this regard. They were always some other companies lapdog making games for them and they weren't supported enough in what would be their first IP in 20 years. Barely got any press from Sony and definitely weren't advertised as much. The reviews weren't particularly fair either, not every game has to be revolutionary, for what it is, it's good. Just dumbing it down as a zombie world open is not an accurate representation to what the game is.

 

Comparing it to GoW doesnt seem reasonable since it was already an established IP and comparing it to TLOU is also out of place, yes, TLOU was a new IP but it was a new IP from a respected developer. 

 

I wont ever buy games day one anymore and I wont ever pre-order games day one anymore and the industry as a whole has itself to blame for that one. The fans of Days Gone would have also been less upset about the news of not getting a sequel (I am one of those) if the game didn't have a cliff hanger ending. Why would you put a cliff hanger at the end of your game when its the first in its IP and really the first game you have. Wishful thinking maybe, but silly none the less.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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.


You’re being a bit disingenuous. Of course it’s true that a game that isn’t supported well isn’t going to get a sequel. However, that’s not the same as saying that a game has to be supported well at launch.

 

Now, maybe reviews were unfair. To the point, I get tired of hearing the complaint that a game “ does nothing new”. It’s a lazy comment used by a wannabe auteur who wishes to show his eclectic chops.

 

But the dev isn’t helping his case here; in fact, he’s probably isolating his own base. After all, I would guess the VAST majority of people looking for a sequel (which likely isn’t all that large to begin with) lies well within the set of people that paid full price for the game. There’s hardly some massive groundswell of support for a sequel of Days Gone outside of that base.


It’s like Tri-Ace saying that people who want Valkyrie Profile 3 should have bought Valkyrie Profile 2, ignoring the fact that this group is in fact one and the same.

 

 

 

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the logic, but personally part of the fun of the gaming hobby for me is finding games in new condition for as cheap as possible. I enjoy browsing sites for deals and discounts and finally seeing that game that's been on my wishlist for months or years finally hit the right price for me to swoop in and get it. The "thrill of the hunt" so to speak. Personal Finance forums will often preach practicing frugality as part of being a financially responsible adult. Being frugal and patient has allowed myself and other gamers to build their game libraries to decent numbers, so I personally think it's a pretty hot take trying to put the burden of guilt onto gamers for just being savvy consumers.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 hours ago, diskdocx said:

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.

 

It wasn't whining, he was being straightforward and truthful on business side of things. It is the consumers' fault. We're responsible for basically everything that happens in the gaming industry. The direction things have taken are directly tied to people's willingness to support something or not, including what sequels are and aren't made. Again, TLOU remake is happening specifically because of people. He's saying—if you love a specific game, but you chose to support that game later after the launch period rather than during it, then don't expect for that game you love to get a sequel.

 

1 hour ago, MyNameIs_Rainman said:

 

this is an amazing point.

 

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.

 

No it's not. Exceptions don't rule out the point. Another game—series actually—not getting a sequel, especially one belonging to a series that has already produced 5+ installments, doesn't negate the point that strong sales usually lead to a sequel, especially in the case of a brand new IP that has one installment. Like, seriously? Not to mention DG doesn't have any popular online supported multiplayer of any kind to keep people playing and their interest for years, unlike GTAV. The comparison is just simply invalid.

Edited by EcoShifter
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's right, period.

We must understand the context of this sentence. He said people can't complain if there is no sequel if these people didn't support the developers buying the game at launch.

You choose to wait for a sale or an offer, that's absolutely fine, just stop bitching about a future project when you bought a pre-owned copy or a sale. 

 

Another thing I need to point out: today there is a lot of "internet". If someone watches a review and the game shows flaws to the reviewer, a lot of people won't get the game full price because a single opinion. Yes, sometimes it doesn't change our hype for the game (like TMNT Mutants in Manhattan for me), but you know there are a lot of people out there that follow these reviews as absolute truth. 

Back then, with or without demos, I watched a video from Driver 3 from the PS Magazine and I bought it full price at launch and I didn't actually care that much about its bugs and gameplay changes.

On the other hand, Balan Wonderlworld demo killed the hype for a lot of people 😂

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I do agree and understand the statement, but I just can't be arsed with half finished games on release anymore.

 

There's only 2 games I bought day one last generation and they were WipEout Omega and Metro: Exodus. I bought them day one, because they're not AAA and I really want them to continue their series. Guess what, they didn't disappoint at all.

 

But there's no way I'm gonna pay 60 bucks on release for an unfinished AAA product and then get charged another 50 bucks for two following season passes. 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I can't agree with that a launch game is like all the homework you kept procrastinating about until the last night before the deadline, but you can't possibly do all that homework in one night, so you go to school with some or barely any of it done than you have to spend extra time doing the rest of it in school.

 

Point is launch games aren't finished products and a bad launch year will forever affect a game no matter how much it is improved it will always be remembered for its launch and with the prices of games closer to 100 these days a lot of people wouldn't be willing to pay at launch a lot of people would rather wait until the price drops and the patches come in.

 

Though I understand what he means on a business perspective since the first year of a game's shelf life is its most integral and is probably when the big decision for another game would be made.

Edited by Sir_TyroneOBE
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DEI2EK said:

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

 

It's in the works. Rockstar specifically stated they wouldn't make the next GTA game until Trump was out of office.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, B1rvine said:

 

It's in the works. Rockstar specifically stated they wouldn't make the next GTA game until Trump was out of office.

 

I honestly thought you were kidding until I actually went to read an article about it; I understand the context as to why he said it, though. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a poor take in my opinion.

 

Sure support the devs and buy the game at new to increase the chances of a sequel. That bit makes sense but...

 

Problem is the dev has forgotten there is a devs reputation and back catalogue (which to me personally was undistinctive) and also the fact that more and more games are releasing incomplete, buggy games at launch. And big games at that. 

 

Day 1 patches, frequent bugs/glitches, Day 1 DLC, DLC on disc, Complete/"GotY" editions in under a years time and goddamn ROADMAPS are all turning me away from buying day one video games. All of these make me wait.

 

Its just a hobby for most of us gamers. For me its escapism. You damn right we get invested and want a sequel. But i will not support anti consumer practices or crap games. My time and money are limited. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If so then they should make sure games are ready on launch day and not a broken mess.

 

Days gone is a brilliant game but what i read on it at launch i decided to wait.....If you want us to buy it at launch make sure the game is ready, not broken especially now with the price increase.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When games charge extra for day one content then no I won't buy it at full price because I'm not getting the full game.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If a game is developed by Santa Monica, Rockstar or Naughty Dog I 100% get their games day one. Days Gone was a bloody mess at launch. I remember having a terrible bug that had to make me restart the game because I couldn't proceed to the next chapter (just like cybertrash). 

Edited by TheSleepyBeauty
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was turned off Days Gone at launch due to the bugs and mediocre reviews. Picked it up in a sale further on down the line and enjoyed it but even if it launched bug free, it wouldn't have been worth picking up on day one for me. I understand the sentiment to an extent but with games getting more and more expensive, people are always gonna be picky with what they purchase on day one.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its kind of funny how that lots of people for a variety of (justified imo) reasons are playing it via psplus or sales. 

 

Its not stupid to say that all these "non day 1" gamers could create or increase the fanbase. 

 

A fanbase that would probably want a sequel.

 

A fanbase that would likely be more inclined to buy a sequel day 1 if they kept all the improvements etc (that initially werent in the first game, and led to them getting it on a sale/psplus later) and had them day 1. 

 

Ho hum

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

i would have grabbed it day one if it was stable. i didn't because it was't, not just stability but awful aiming. And I would have appreciated my purchase more when amazing free dlc rolled in.

 

but we live in a world where anthem and fallout 76 now exist, and games like Tlou 2 whilst still stand on their merits, suffered from over ambition and deceptive marketting to at the very least make you believe you were getting what ND wanted you to think you would be getting when you weren't.

 

but from all of the interviews i've seen him in he's been very diplomatic and careful with his words, he was even on the original GoW creator's YT channel doing an interview recently, his exit came up and he shared some diplomatic thoughts on it, so if anything this seems a bit overblown, but even if it wasn't the guy had his entire studio gutted to feed drucman a few new disposable animators lol so i imagine he would be pissed.

Edited by MatThaRiPP3R84
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Beyondthegrave07 said:

I'll give him this; he's technically not wrong. Sales volume is the ultimate driver and paying full price will ensure a game's success (and get a sequel).

 

He's definitely not wrong on a collective level, but on an individual level buying a game at full price isn't really going to do anything, and it's highly unlikely that gamers are going to rally en masse to buy Days Gone for 60$.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

7 minutes ago, Darling Baphomet said:

 

He's definitely not wrong on a collective level, but on an individual level buying a game at full price isn't really going to do anything, and it's highly unlikely that gamers are going to rally en masse to buy Days Gone for 60$.

It's definitely idealism at its best. You'd think he'd be more realistic and say that gamers shouldn't give up on buying a game if it has technical issues at the beginning or received bad reviews because DG definitely had both. Expecting anyone to pay full price for a broken game at launch is a joke.

Edited by Beyondthegrave07
Grammar
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll buy games at launch when there not buggy from launch. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does no one in the industry remember NieR: Automata? The original NieR Gestalt and Replicant didn't do well commercially or with the critics and the follow up, Drakengard 3, did just as poorly. However, despite that Square Enix still let NieR: Automata be made many years later and it became a massive success according to Square. Now Replicant is getting a remake releasing soon that's likely going to be successful too.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, EcoShifter said:

 

It wasn't whining, he was being straightforward and truthful on business side of things. It is the consumers' fault. We're responsible for basically everything that happens in the gaming industry. The direction things have taken are directly tied to people's willingness to support something or not, including what sequels are and aren't made. Again, TLOU remake is happening specifically because of people. He's saying—if you love a specific game, but you chose to support that game later after the launch period rather than during it, then don't expect for that game you love to get a sequel.

 

 

No it's not. Exceptions don't rule out the point. Another game—series actually—not getting a sequel, especially one belonging to a series that has already produced 5+ installments, doesn't negate the point that strong sales usually lead to a sequel, especially in the case of a brand new IP that has one installment. Like, seriously? Not to mention DG doesn't have any popular online supported multiplayer of any kind to keep people playing and their interest for years, unlike GTAV. The comparison is just simply invalid.

Ghost Of Tsushima didn't have any online portion either, but it was a well crafted game, it was well received by players and critics, and it ended up getting a MP feature, not to the level of GTA V, but something to keep the game going.

 

I'm not saying exceptions rule out anything, but there's always a possibility that it's going to get milked. What also doesn't help Days Gone is that it fell into that zombie/undead genre that has just felt saturated for years. GTA..well..GTA is it's own entity at this point..people compare open world games to games like GTA, not vice versa, like how people compare games to Souls games and how they've developed their own orbit essentially. I haven't played days gone yet but I plan to at least give it a shot like other Sony exclusives. I know GTa having been an established franchise and having a robust MP might not be the best example but I couldn't think of much else at the moment. 

 

I believe that you vote with your wallet, whether it's at launch, or 2 years from now, that dev is still going to see that money..might not be as much, but I don't agree with the philosophy of I need you to pay this 69.99 right now or else there will never be a sequel. The devs should care for their product more, take the time to make it a work of art and a work of love, not just something for me to toss money at in hopes it creates their next big blockbuster. But it's irresponsible for all of that blame to be shifted on the consumer, expect us to shell out full value for products that aren't worth that much due to bugs, QA issues, etc etc. Maybe more demos need to be released, maybe devs need to keep gamers more in the loop at the QA processes are going on, or just simply be more transparent with us. IDK, but all I know is if I shelled out launch price for every single game I liked because I wanted a sequel I'd be broke real quick, so that is just silly to even suggest that from the consumer. 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, darkrequiem7 said:

If you want me to buy games at launch, release full, complete games that don't require weeks and months of patching and don't receive DLC that will eventually be bundled into a "complete edition."

 

This is exactly why I boycott full price games a long time ago. It's human nature to not want to be ripped off.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Days Gone was a new IP. How are people supposed to know they want a sequel before they buy it? So should we buy all new games at launch just in case we want sequels? That's silly.

2

Share this post


Link to post
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.