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

[BacklogGamer964]

I love games, but this is why I hate it as an industry. People only have so much time and money to put into games, and when the industry rushes out broken mess after broken mess, of course people are gonna wait. If you want people to buy your game at launch rather than 6 months later, maybe make sure it's fully tested and working correctly when you ship it out, and not wait till 6 months later to fix it. 

[starcrunch061]

3 hours ago, TimeLordCrow13y said:

While I’m sympathetic to developers, 2 things:

 

1) This would’ve been a better argument in the days of PS2 and before. Back then games were released in a complete state because patches required another physical launch (which isn’t cost efficient), dlc was non-existant and even expansions were rare. If I’m going to pay full price for a game, with all due respect-I want the full game in a finished state-extras (like alternate costumes, weapons, etc) included on the disc, preferably as a reward for beating the game. 

 

I was thinking about the PS2 days as I walked home from work today. It's funny, but I think that digital delivery of games is really biting a lot of devs in the ass.

 

Back in the PS2 day, a game published by Sony would have guaranteed a HUGE amount of shipped copies to stores all over the place. Stores would buy up copies because they don't want to lose out, and Sony would have made bank. There was really little risk for a developer who was published by a big company (and probably even less for the publisher). Thus, even if a lot of those copies didn't sell, they were still treated as "day 1" sales from an accounting point of view (after all, it's not Squeenix that loses out if their physical games rot on shelves, as did Final Fantasy XIII-2). Thus, a game with a rather tepid reception (like FFXIII-2) can still garner a sequel, because all of those shipped copies are sold copies as far as Squeenix is concerned. Squeenix shipped tons of copies of FFXIII-2, many of which languished on store shelves for months, but that store is still willing to pick up a Lightning Returns, because...it's Squeenix, and Squeenix has made them money in the past.

 

Digital delivery changes all of this. Now, you can't count on those front-end shipped copies to guarantee sales and profit. You have to rely on actual consumers buying your product, and I think this has been problematic for accounting practices for the large publishers. They are far more gun shy to give the green light for sequels for slow burn projects, but are also unwilling to let go of those IPs (I imagine it's a corporate case of FOMO). 

 

A game like Days Gone would have been a smashing success as a physical entity 10-15 years ago. It was published by Sony as a big thing; stores would have invested heavily in the product. A sequel would likely have happened. But we're in the digital age, and without those front-end sales, it's too risky to consider a sequel.

 

Add to this the potential of piracy (so that word of mouth might not be all that helpful, unlike a Demon's Souls), and...maybe I was a little too hard on this salty dev. But I still stand by my earlier claim: this is an industry issue, not a consumer one. It is not at all certain that consumers would have bought Days Gone off the shelf on day 1 back in the PS2/PS3 days, either. But back then, it might not have mattered in the end. It certainly does now.

[StraightVege]

55 minutes ago, OpenScars said:

Here's a crazy idea... release a game that's gone through basic testing. After that, do some more testing. Once that's done.... test it.
When you're 100% happy, release the game at a price that's reasonable.

 

That, and maybe also release a complete package which doesn't require an overpriced season pass or special edition to get all the content. God of War (2018) seems to be a perfect example that this can be accomplished in the AAA sphere, even if I personally didn't like it that much.

 

What I've read of the interview hasn't exactly endeared this guy to me.

[OpenScars]

10 minutes ago, ScarecrowsFate said:

 

That, and maybe also release a complete package which doesn't require an overpriced season pass or special edition to get all the content. God of War (2018) seems to be a perfect example that this can be accomplished in the AAA sphere, even if I personally didn't like it that much.

 

What I've read of the interview hasn't exactly endeared this guy to me.

We're all idiots to be honest. We buy an incomplete game (the rest of the game being DLC or Microtransactions). Then wonder why 'Big Company' a year later include all of the actual game (DLC and MT) for one price of......... just your new born, plus your neighbours kid for a DISCOUNT price!

Feed the rich, rich get fat. So we keep feeding the rich, who just take more advantage of us and say 'it's business, here's a £60 beta to help finish our game'.

 

EDIT: I'm not jealous at all, that I can't abuse people for easy money. This post is more for reddit, but... here we are.

Edited April 20, 2021 by OpenScars

[PostalDudeRus]

Dude blames Dark Mirror poor sales as cause of piracy. Man I've played it and it sucked, piracy is not causing poor sales (see Deus Ex Mankind Divided being cracked after year of release and how poorly it sold due to stupid marketing and game length). This game he talks about, Days Gone, actually one of the worst "AAA-copy past" of last years. They make games every time by same god damn template: open-world,crafting,camps to clear, poor-rpg related things like skills and upgrades and stuff, I hate when every company tries to act like Ubisoft-wanna be.

If your game is awesome, innovative and unique = PEOPLE WILL PAY FOR IT. If you spend 70% of budged on marketing and rest on actual game, don't be surprised. 

Edited April 20, 2021 by PostalDudeRus

[DrBloodmoney]

4 hours ago, PostalDudeRus said:

Dude blames Dark Mirror poor sales as cause of piracy. Man I've played it and it sucked, piracy is not causing poor sales (see Deus Ex Mankind Divided being cracked after year of release and how poorly it sold due to stupid marketing and game length). This game he talks about, Days Gone, actually one of the worst "AAA-copy past" of last years. They make games every time by same god damn template: open-world,crafting,camps to clear, poor-rpg related things like skills and upgrades and stuff, I hate when every company tries to act like Ubisoft-wanna be.

If your game is awesome, innovative and unique = PEOPLE WILL PAY FOR IT. If you spend 70% of budged on marketing and rest on actual game, don't be surprised. 

 

 

Yeah, he does seem desperate to blame anyone but himself and his team for Days Gone's failure to sell.

 

Christ - it's not like it didn't have every opportunity - Sony was giving Days Gone the centre stage right along with The Last of Us Part II, Ghost of Tsushima and Spiderman - and all three of those managed to sell gangbusters at launch.

 

It takes a special kind of arrogance to assume that Day Gone's failure to do the same is the fault of the players.

 

Here's a thought Mr. Garvin - maybe if you want your game to sell any launch:

• maybe don't make the main characters look like they belong in a gussied up sequel to Ride to Hell Retribution
• maybe don't decide to do a straight, un-ironic Zombie game 3 years after everyone got bored of that genre
• maybe don't try to use "number of enemies on screen" as a selling point, since this isn't the year 2000 and you aren't selling Kessen
• and if you are going to feature some dialogue in your trailers, maybe pick the stuff that doesn't sound like it was written by Tommy Wiseau

 

Then, maybe we will buy it at launch.

Edited April 20, 2021 by DrBloodmoney

[N1NJ4_V4MP1R3]

I’ve heard all I need to hear between this and him mentioning Syphon Filter and pirates taking money out of his pocket. Illegal downloads don’t equate to lost sales.

People will spend money on the things they love, that just doesn’t apply to Days Gone which had worst critical reception of any Sony first party in recent memory

[Carol]

Some reactions to this interview from people who work at Bend Studio:

 

 

 

[DrBloodmoney]

7 minutes ago, Carol said:

Some reactions to this interview from people who work at Bend Studio:

 

 

?

 

Translation:

 

"I haven't worked at Bend Studio long, but one thing I do know is that that guy who worked here before, and got the boot, was a right fanny"

 

Good on these guys for bringing a little reality and humility to the situation.

Edited April 20, 2021 by DrBloodmoney

[Shikotei-kun]

Having read the interview I noticed quite a few swears and strong language that shouldn't be present.

It's just not done in any kind of official meeting, whether it's with a CEO of a company of just a lunchtime meeting with a blogger..

 

That said, there's plenty of people who don't like the genre of the game a dev makes (I personally don't care much for shooters) and there's the possibility that the market is over-saturated with the game's genre (there's only so much zombie one can handle in a row).

Or it has so many clones you don't even know what's what (Call of Duty anyone?) or the stream of JRPGs that Kemco releases.

 

The fact that he compared the sales of God of War (an established IP with half a dozen games across multiple platforms and releases spread across a more than a decade) to a new IP is quite a poorly thought out move.

The difference in fanbase is enormous!

 

Why not compare it to Horizon Zero Dawn, also a new IP? It's at least (somewhat) similar according to PostalDudeRus:

11 hours ago, PostalDudeRus said:

open-world,crafting,camps to clear, poor-rpg related things like skills and upgrades and stuff

I haven't played Days Gone so I cannot argue the "poor" adverb.

 

Games used to be released completed, bugfree, and only a few exceptions had planned DLC (heck, they were called expansions!). Nowadays games are pre-orderable, with up to 6 DLC already planned, Season Passes all around, and still months of patches later there's glitches, exploits, bugs, and simple broken content still about.

The digital era made this possible. Patches are simply delivered to consumers through the internet. Gone are the days (pun intended) that a patch meant a full re-run of the physical product, costing millions in production...

Companies simply couldn't afford that kind of mistake. In rare cases a Demo was available with the first level/mission on it.

 

Sequels take just as much time to create (fitting the same world, innovating gameplay mechanics, writing the story, designing levels and new characters) as the original: years.

I can understand that the funding for such a venture is not immediately available and still quite risky to do so when the majority of it must come from the sales of the original game. Every new IP needs time to reach the right audience (marketing, reviews, and streamers help) and as such needs time to make the decision to buy the game.

A successful game still takes months to truly earn itself back in revenue.

 

To answer the initial question: If I like a game well enough to buy it during launch (let's say the first few weeks), I'd already bought it through a pre-order or reservation at my local game shop. Digital games during launch are just as expensive as the physical product, so I'm inclined to get the physical version.

 

Very few games in my cupboard had this treatment. A selection:

- Tales of Symphonia (special edition has a book with an in-between games events)

- Dark Souls III (finally enough games on the PS4 to warrant a purchase of this console)

- Ni No Kuni II (loved the first one and big fan of Studio Ghibli)

- OddWorld Soulstorm (played the originals on PC way back when, planning on getting the remasters)

Everything else is purchased at lower prices (20%-70% discount) or second hand.

[Thrillhelm]

Days Gone was full price for a long time, and why should I want a sequel if I do not know how much fun  the first game is?

[Vault-TecPhantom]

On 4/18/2021 at 4:06 PM, xh117 said:

Did he really compare sales of Days Gone to God of War? A lot of people were turned off to Days Gone because of mediocre reviews and bugs at launch. If you want people to buy at launch it has to be worth full price, this wasn't.

 

Thank you. I think that closes the discussion to be honest!

[TJ_Solo]

48 minutes ago, Thrillhelm said:

Days Gone was full price for a long time, and why should I want a sequel if I do not know how much fun  the first game is?

 

That is a good question considering the number of people concerned with a sequel to a game they haven't even played.

[TheMutilatingOne]

.

Edited April 22, 2021 by TheMutilatingOne

[Guardian_owl]

I think he is mostly training his ire at people who are stating on twitter, message boards, petitions, etc. their shock and disapproval that Sony shut down a Days Gone sequel, but they only picked it up when at low pricing, second hand, or on PS+. I picked up Vanquish and Shadows of the Damned for $5 new and got Bayonetta on PS+. I ended up loving all 3 games and at the time I could be hopeful that there would be sequels one day, but I wouldn't have a leg to stand on to complain why there isn't a sequel since I didn't support the games at a price point in which it would be profitable. To this day I am annoyed that the Bayonetta sequels are Switch exclusives which means I'll never get to play them, but I (and many like me) didn't support it so they couldn't get funding from Sega to make another, so I have no right to complain. It's only by the grace of Nintendo backing up the money truck that sequels got made. So when the Vanquish/Bayonetta Remaster physical bundle came out, I put my money were my mouth is and bought it at launch so that hopefully we'll get a Vanquish sequel someday.

 

I remember the same type of thing when the Dreamcast went down in flames. "Why did the Dreamcast fail? I picked it up for $99 and it's such a great machine with a lot of great games."

Edited April 20, 2021 by Guardian_owl

[craig_obviously]

I for one am disappointed that there may not be a Days Gone sequel... one of the last few games i bought at launch. Should people buy at launch, in the past I would have said sure, why not, yes, if you have the means to help support something you are interested in..

 

but repetitive broken over-promised releases have jaded many gamers including myself.... so here we are.

[RadiantFlamberge]

On 4/18/2021 at 11:12 AM, 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."

Especially when it's your $50, $60, or sometimes even $70 going towards the "base" game. Developers, if your game turns out to be a broken, buggy mess... fix it. Do whatever it takes, such as a delay or a day-one patch. Not everybody will buy a game at launch.

 

More pre-launch demos of games would be nice. Giving players a taste of the game by letting them play the first chapter or prologue for free is a good idea. This would make it easier for more people to answer The $60 Question. It's like Shark Tank. The Sharks don't give an instant yes or no without taking a good look at the product. You shouldn't have to either. There's where the demo can help. You play the demo and decide it's for you... day one preorder. If not, you either feel that the game is overvaluated and decide to wait for a sale, or just say "I'm out".

 

Maybe it would've been better for CD Projekt Red to swear off a PS4/X1 release of Cyberpunk 2077 and treat it as strictly a next-gen title. My feeling is that PC was the real lead platform for this, and that the console ports should've gone straight to PS5/XSX. I don't expect the next-gen version to match the PC Ultra graphics settings, but I'm sure it'll be an improvement over what there is on PS4.

[ghattas]

Totally disagree, my money, my rules. Even with sales and "free" ps plus games I find myself having less and less time to play blockbusters and focus more on short sessions games, my backlog is so huge with games I've "supported" but never got to even unwrap (spiderman, horizon..). Also shouldn't they care more about total life revenue rather than launch week sales.. it's not like the games go stale in a year.

 

Series I've always bought and enjoyed on launch: everything Nauthgty dog, Motorstorm,  Quantic Dream, Media molecules, Final Fantasy (except the remake because I thought part 2 was coming sooner rather than later but lol)

Edited April 20, 2021 by ghattas

[Shinoda_2qx]

I was late to the PS3 party - I got one in around 2010/11. I got Killzone 2 for a preowned price of £4. I pre-ordered the special Hig edition of KZ3, I got the collectors edition pre-ordered of KZSF packaged with the PS4 at launch, I pre-ordered KZ Merc...yet where’s my KZ5? Kicked to the side and discarded. By this argument I should be refunded for the full priced ones, where as my KZ2 at £4 was a nice investment. 

[Dauersack]

Obviously days gone did not sell as well as much more expensive and high profile games with sometimes more than a decade of building a dedicated fanbase behind them, who would have thought. Adding to the fact that it isn't one of the biggest releases is the small detail of it being a zombie game, a completely oversaturated genre in the past few years, and the shitty promotion making it look pretty bland. With the year 2020 being the single most disappointing year when it comes to big/hyped releases and therefore warning any player not to buy early, an still ongoing pandemic limiting many peoples funds for gaming, and with them having recently increased the release prices without delivering any additional value while still stuffing most games chock full with microtransactions, I gotta say now is the worst possible time to shit on people for not paying full price to be beta testers for unfinished and rushed games. I wonder if that developers mother maybe drank too much alcohol during the pregnancy for him to be too idiotic to realize how bad this makes him look.

 

But sure, why wouldn't I wanna use my limited money to buy 1 likely shitty and broken game for full price to play test it while it is unfinished. I mean, I instead bought several games on sales for the money Days Gone would have cost me at release, and then I basically got Days Gone as a freeby on psplus, with it giving me a vastly superior experience with it than the fools who beta tested it at release had, but I now see the error of my ways and I shall pay MUCH more for far less to reinforce some idiotic devs and even worse management mouthbreathers delusional mindset that every single new IP has to be the next Call Of Duty caliber francise for it to be worth committing to. Man the stupidity and complete lack of common sense of the people being in charge of shit in the gaming industry never fails to baffle me.

[AJ_Radio]

21 hours ago, starcrunch061 said:

Back in the PS2 day, a game published by Sony would have guaranteed a HUGE amount of shipped copies to stores all over the place. Stores would buy up copies because they don't want to lose out, and Sony would have made bank. There was really little risk for a developer who was published by a big company (and probably even less for the publisher). Thus, even if a lot of those copies didn't sell, they were still treated as "day 1" sales from an accounting point of view (after all, it's not Squeenix that loses out if their physical games rot on shelves, as did Final Fantasy XIII-2). Thus, a game with a rather tepid reception (like FFXIII-2) can still garner a sequel, because all of those shipped copies are sold copies as far as Squeenix is concerned. Squeenix shipped tons of copies of FFXIII-2, many of which languished on store shelves for months, but that store is still willing to pick up a Lightning Returns, because...it's Squeenix, and Squeenix has made them money in the past.

 

Digital delivery changes all of this. Now, you can't count on those front-end shipped copies to guarantee sales and profit. You have to rely on actual consumers buying your product, and I think this has been problematic for accounting practices for the large publishers. They are far more gun shy to give the green light for sequels for slow burn projects, but are also unwilling to let go of those IPs (I imagine it's a corporate case of FOMO). 

Which essentially means no more LA Noire, no more Sleeping Dogs, no more Lollipop Chainsaw, no more Vanquish, no more Dante’s Inferno. I can pick several other games that probably wouldn’t survive in today’s world. 
 

The lack of AA titles is really irritating me. Granted, two of the games I listed had their companies shut down shortly after release, but still. 
 

If you asked me over a decade ago if I wanted to be a game developer, I would of said yes. Now? Not a chance. 
 

People like Neil Druckmann just confirm I rather not play a part in making a game.

Edited April 20, 2021 by AJ_Radio

[Darling Baphomet]

21 hours ago, PostalDudeRus said:

If your game is awesome, innovative and unique = PEOPLE WILL PAY FOR IT. If you spend 70% of budged on marketing and rest on actual game, don't be surprised. 

 

I always knew there was a reason that games such as Fortnite and 2K / EA's annual sport releases did so well financially; but I had never considered awesomeness, innovation, or uniqueness to be primary motivators. Such a profound thought to behold.

 

Mockery aside, unknown indie masterpiece #6,800,507 wants a word. Also, Dreams.

Edited April 20, 2021 by Darling Baphomet

[knicksrulez220]

Typical clickbait media taking one thing John Garvin said in a 4 hour long podcast and making him come across as a total twit. I watched 2 hours of the stream and I really enjoyed it. Garvin is a fascinating and smart dude who has a lot of insights about the industry and has much more humility than the article suggests. 

 

I do disagree with this specific take of his though. Games are super expensive as it is and so many games come out buggy at launch. I very rarely pay full price for a game for this reason. Due to nothing else being out I recently paid full price for Outriders and I REALLY regret it. This game is so buggy that I spend half my time staring at a network disconnected screen rather than playing the actual game. Had I waited a couple months I could get a fully functioning game for $30 or less. So many times its the early adopters who get penalized, which is exactly why I'm usually NOT an early adopter lol.  

 

I haven't played Days Gone but from what I hearing on here it was also quite buggy at launch. Bend was a relatively unknown company making a new IP, so I certainly don't blame people for waiting. Had they nailed their first impression, I'm sure we would be getting a Days Gone 2.

[OmegaRejectz]

What horse shit. I understand it to a degree. But this game is not some decade defining Red Dead Redemption 2 game. This game was abysmal at launch, riddled with technical issues that bogged down the entire experience. Blame Sony for not giving Bend Studio another chance. The game was at least decent after patches, but c'mon. Tons of people literally call this game their favourite zombie game of all time and all this dude can say 'Bwah! You guys didn't buy it when it was busted'.

[TheGameCapsule]

On 4/18/2021 at 7:55 AM, Carol said:

https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/days-gone-lead-says-dont-complain-if-theres-no-sequel-if-you-didnt-buy-it-full-price/

 

What’s your opinion about this idea?

In my case, I kinda agree with this, but, unfortunately, I can’t always afford games at launch/full price. I always try to support developers and, especially, PS exclusives, but spending 60€/70€ is not always possible for me. 
In the particular case of “Days Gone”, I think the game was quite buggy at launch and the reviews weren’t that amazing, so maybe that’s why many people didn’t buy it right away. I definitely don’t regret spending 40€ on DG, less than two years ago, even if it’s now free for PS Plus members.

 I think supporting the games we’re interested in is important, even if they don’t turn out to be mind-blowing.

I don't understand this quote.  Let's really think about this:

"If you want a sequel, buy the game at launch!"

 

So l the consumer, see Days Gone is coming out.  Its not on sale yet and maybe l havent watched any trailers for it. Even if l did keep up with the game, reviews, and its delays, my thinking is expected to be: "l want Days Gone 2 -- l better get this game!"

 

Doesn't make sense.  

Edited April 21, 2021 by TheGameCapsule
Grammar