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

[AJ_Radio]

19 hours ago, Thrillhelm said:

Having a sequel in mind when you release a new game sounds like you hold back any good ideas for a potential second game.

 

The gamerbase has shown they do not like a lot of methods to squeeze money out of their wallets:

- online gaming pass

- attempts to choke the second hand market

- locked content on a disc

- taking out game content to disguise it as DLC (Asura's Wrath or AC2 with sequences 12 and 13)

- microtransactions and pay2win.

 

Guilt-tripping your loyal customer with not getting a sequel because you did not pay full-price at launch? Get lost.

 

Its a shame cause I love Days Gone.

 

All of which has been going on for at least 10 - 12 years since the early PS3/360 era.

 

The former Days Gone developer is obviously salty. But once again, this goes to show that a lot of people who make games don't exactly play them. This old guy looks like he never played a game in his life. Maybe he did, who knows. But his response was bullshit, plain and simple.

 

Arrogant responses like that are why I don't buy games at launch anymore. You're practically paying for an unfinished product, and to wait months for patches is far too long.

 

18 hours ago, juniordrfanatic said:

Nice cop out. The more years go by, the more i think that buying brand new video games on launch that still need patches after 2, 3 months is a huge waste of money. If i buy that game now, i wanna play it now.

 

Imagine going to a restaurant, pay for your meal, full price, only for it arrive incomplete.

 

There's advantages to patching, like fixing a bug here and there, but these days, it's an excuse for companies to release uncompleted games filled with bugs.

 

Exactly.

 

18 hours ago, TomataEighty9 said:

DrBloodmoney - I couldn't agree more.

 

Off course, you should only buy from studios you love (day 1). Trust is built over time. I trust Rockstar 100%.

 

So yeah, it swings both ways. Like i said, Fifa, i never buy that from new or at full price. EA don't deserve my money.

 

You can add Activision, Bethesda and Ubisoft to that list.

 

17 hours ago, Elvick_ said:

Also as a person who started the game and thinks it's boring as hell, but was told by those who played into the game and beat it and enjoyed it that it actually gets better.... make the start of your game good too otherwise people will play an hour or two and say it's boring then people will be put off by that aspect as well. If you can't hook people early then you failed at game design. Even if the game gets better the early part is crucial to ensure people don't go return the game and play something else, and then go online to talk about how it was lame and boring. People shouldn't have to wade through boredom to get to when the "game gets good". Those are exactly the type of games that in my opinion you should buy on sale.

 

Days Gone was priced at under $20 at a number of online retailers six months after release. For that price point, I say it was worth it. Paying $60 that takes on a tired theme (zombies) and looked rather generic, not worth it.

 

Marvel's Spider-Man I paid close to $100 for ($60 for the base game, $20 - 30 for the Season Pass) and I still felt I was being ripped off. In contrast, Spider-Man was far more polished and complete than Days Gone.

 

17 hours ago, Elvick_ said:

Also this goes far beyond just this game. It's concerning that Sony is placing such importance on metacritic which is utter fucking garbage, and early sales in what they deem worth continuing. PlayStation used to provide a lot of experimental smaller games that might not sell well, but would add value to their hardware. Something Astro's Playroom pretends that PlayStation respects and loves, but in practice apparently they don't give a rats ass about what made PS great to begin with.

And a lot of those games were failed by their own marketing, or lack thereof. Just having a lower price wasn't going to get people to be aware of the gem that is Puppeteer. They just let it go out there and die. Only caring about their mainstream story based cinematic shooters. Even God of War moved more toward that with it's camera placement and gameplay shift. I mean sure it works, but it's also boring after awhile.

 

Which is where Days Gone partly suffered. It had nothing to make it stand out compared to the other same games that Sony is pushing out. Why would people want that game over The Last of Us Part 2? They were literally announced in the same year. lol, Sony didn't even let Days Gone have a chance. Not that it having a seemingly bland protagonist and no great "hook" beyond "look at the number of enemies~" and "my bike" which is kind of tired given that almost every damn game is open world.

 

They have to be completely stupid to rely entirely on AAA blockbusters. The new God of War game and Ratchet & Clank game simply aren't enough. I remember when I was younger during the PS2 era I used to rent and try out a lot of experimental smaller games because Sony had by far the most variety out of everybody in that generation. There was literally a bunch of AA quality games that while they may have not sold well, they had that something that kept gamers invested in Sony products.

 

I think of stuff like Bayonetta and Vanquish, two games I consider moreso to be AA titles than true AAA blockbusters like God of War 3 and Uncharted 2. Sadly the later Bayonetta stuff is strictly exclusive to Nintendo, which is a shame. You had a lot more in terms of AA games in the early PS3/360 era. Nowadays, AA games have mostly been missing from Sony's lineup.

 

In Puppeteer's case it was rather niche. Same with the PlayStation Move games Sony kept trying to push consumers onto. Having Sony Studio Japan make games like Knack was a good thing. Now it's gone, because Sony in California decided to focus on the mainstream story cinematic experience. Pretty much in line with Hollywood, which I gave up on a long time ago.

 

16 hours ago, Elvick_ said:

The other thing is... Sony is going full on with increasing the price of games by $10. As are many other publishers. I'm not buying Ratchet and Clank for $100 with tax in Canada. Sorry, I love that series so much but I can't justify that cost. The $90 was already absurd and hard to balance. People have limited funds. The more you charge for each game the more you have to compete against other games coming out. Including the third party games. I always wanted a third person game from Housemarque, but I'm not paying that price. So they lost me on that too. Even if I was willing to pay that price, I'd have to limit what else I buy just to get one game in place of it. I've gotten an entire series on PC for cheaper than one new game. Fallout, Elder Scrolls... Far Cry I believe still came out cheaper. No thank you on paying $100 for one game. No matter what it is.

 

Housemarque was always a good developer. The poor sales from their latest games Nex Machina and Matterfall caused them to drop out of the arcade genre. A shame, because Resogun was a PS4 launch title that helped the console along when it released.

 

16 hours ago, Elvick_ said:

And for games that Sony are making... they're a lot like many third party games now. And it seems like that's ALL they want to make... this is going to create so many more "Days Gones" that just get swept away and don't get bought day 1 because they failed to draw in the interest. "I could buy *new open world Sony action game*, or I could buy Assassin's Creed 42343..." You can't always have a winning idea, or a popular existing franchise to fall back on like Spider-Man. And when you're doing the third person action or open world games that's most AAA games too. So you really have to have that unique hook or people are just going to fall back on the familiar 3rd party game instead. And by the time your game is even on sale the next big 3rd party game is coming out too. 

Are they just going to make tons of spinoffs of their tried and true stuff now? Are we just going to get another Uncharted spinoff every other year until they run it into the ground because they can't be bothered to risk anything? Are they already working on remaking The Last of Us Part 2 in addition to the original game's remake? Are they going to remake God of War PS4? Spin off from God of War so they can make multiple games at once from it? 

I can't imagine what they're thinking. I'd love to think they'd crash and burn spectacularly, but they won't. That would be useful to get positive change and that's yet to happen to a degree that changed Nintendo around fully to what I know they're capable of. Though at least they still experiment, while PS seems like it's going to become boring as shit as a publisher. 

 

Exactly.

 

What has more variety and creativity? Knack, Killzone Shadowfall, Resogun and inFamous: Second Son? Or Horizon Zero Dawn, God of War 2018, Days Gone and Marvel's Spider-Man?

 

The latter is ALL OPEN WORLD. The former has only one open world, inFamous: Second Son. I must also point out that Sony threw out more variety in the early PS4 gen. You used to see more indie/AA material surface, but now it's almost strictly AAA blockbusters that all look and play the same.

[Savage_Sarabi]

It doesn't seem to matter regardless because we got Sony denying the chance of ever even getting a sequel to Days Gone in favour of yet another go around with The Last of Us. We spoke with our money a little too loudly on that one apparently. It's not like Days Gone completely flopped and a sequel could be warranted but it doesn't matter if one group of people get to make the executive decision to say no. 

[Darling Baphomet]

11 hours ago, Together_Comic said:

 

I would argue that Fortnight was/is innovative and quality when it was released.  It was one of the initial wave of the battle royal style along with PUBG and was really well received.  The sports games I think are carried by the popularity of sports in and of themselves, even the annual COD every year has roots in quality in Modern Warfare and Halo 2 and are still coasting on the initial popularity, so there is definitely something to the idea that quality sells.  The problem I think in the idea is that a game only needs a baseline quality to sell.  For sure, these games aren't the pinnacle of quality, but they are good enough that there other popular features can carry them to commercial success thus prompting sequel after sequel to the point where they have become extremely stale.   

 

As to the main topic, I think there is some truth to the idea that games that are a commercial success on release, tend to get sequels.  That being said, to insinuate that the reason Days Gone didn't get a sequel is because it wasn't popular on release is incredibly tone deaf and disingenuous.  This is the first release this particular developer has had on console in a long while and even then, none of their previous games were a massive success.  I can't comment on the quality of Day's Gone other than hearsay since I haven't played it, but all reports turn to it being somewhere between mediocre and good after they fixed all the bugs at launch.   People that loved it will now be incentivized to buy the next thing from Bend, and would probably be more willing to buy it earlier which would lead to what ole buddy in the article wants.  As it is, he kinda burned up some of the good will he had developed. 

 

I think there's a curve to it, like to a certain extent a game has to be easily accessible and well designed in order to sell well - but innovation and uniqueness are most certainly not requirements for success; even Sony's exclusives, which are largely very good games, tend to play it safe with their formulas; Horizon Zero Dawn, while one of my favorite games this generation, was hardly innovative, just well executed and with a fairly unique setting. You want games to be just the bare minimum of unique, or gimmicky, that people are interested in playing them, while sticking to formulas that have proven themselves popular as much as possible. If games release massively broken, there's usually outrage which harms the sale, but besides that you don't really need to make an exceptional game in order to make a game that sells well.

 

But even then, what you really need is hype and appeal; for instance even with its horrendous launch, Cyberpunk 2077 is estimated to have sold twenty million copies. Twenty million copies! For a game that was almost unplayable on some platforms and nothing like what was promised. The original poster I replied to insinuated earlier that Days Gone was a failure simply because it wasn't a good game - hence the comparisons to Fortnite and Fifa #whatever the fuck. I mean, even Anthem sold fairly well, and that game literally bricked people's consoles.

 

Fortnite was definitely innovative in terms of the aspects that it borrowed from Save the World, but it was directly inspired by PUBG, to the point that the creator of PUBG tried to sue Epic, which was already massively popular by the time Fortnite BR came out.

Edited April 22, 2021 by Darling Baphomet

[juniordrfanatic]

We can sit here and argue about the delevopers, but the consumer is a big part of the problem as well. Open world games became the norm because, well, the majority of the consumers complain about linear games, and want "freedom".

 

To me, the issue is, people got used to buying a game only for that game to be kind of playable, and instead of having to patch a console game being the exception, it turned into the norm.

 

I've been a console guy for years, even though i know that PC=Master Race. But after seeing the disaster of the Cyberpunk launch, how can i defend something that's clearly inferior that offers no advantages whatsoever? Back in the PS2 days, all i had to worry was about memory card space before i started playing the game. Now i have to worry about HDD space, having to download a patch and then, after that, pray that the patch cleared any glitches and that the game is playable.

[kenseizenkai]

This is basically a double-edged sword. On one side developers/publishers hope their new exciting IP will sell well to generate high revenue & become a franchise, but on the other side, an excellent game will flop & fall into obscurity & developer/publisher will consider the game a wasted potential. Here are 2 cases:

 

In 2009, Batman: Arkham Asylum was released to huge critical & commercial success that took WB Games (publisher & owner of the IP) & Rocksteady Studios (developer) by surprise. In 2011, a sequel Batman: Arkham City (again developed by Rocksteady Studios) was released to even greater success. Now WB Games got greedy & figured they need to released an Arkham game every 2 years. Thus in 2013, 2 very mediocre games were released: Batman: Arkham Origins (developed by WB Montreal) for home consoles & Batman: Arkham Origins Blackgate (developed by Amature Studios) for 3DS & Vita. Both games had an average sale & got mixed reviews. In 2015, Batman: Arkham Knight (developed once again by series regular Rocksteady Studios) was released again to average reviews & sales. Now this is where WB Games put the Arkham franchise on ice for 6 years. Next game, a spin-off titled Gotham Knights (again developed by WB Montreal) will be released this year (2021).

 

In 2006 Okami was released to excellent reviews, but poor sales, so Capcom (publisher & owner of the IP) was forced to shotdown Clover Studios (developer) mere months after the game was released.  In 2010, a spiritual successor titled Okamiden (developed by Mobile & Game Studios, Inc) was released for 3DS to good reviews & average sales, so Capcom lost confidence in the IP for good. In 2017, a remaster of the original game titled Okami HD was released. 

 

My point is, if a game generates profit at launch date, there's a big chance that publisher will get greedy & oversell the product like Arkham games (& Assassin's Creed & COD) with unnecessary sequels, spin-offs, comic books, animated movies & live action movies. It's quality not quantity that counts.

Edited April 22, 2021 by kenseizenkai

[juniordrfanatic]

1 hour ago, kenseizenkai said:

In 2006 Okami was released to excellent reviews, but poor sales, so Capcom (publisher & owner of the IP) was forced to shotdown Clover Studios (developer) mere months after the game was released.  In 2010, a spiritual successor titled Okamiden (developed by Mobile & Game Studios, Inc) was released for 3DS to good reviews & average sales, so Capcom lost confidence in the IP for good. In 2017, a remaster of the original game titled Okami HD was released. 

 

 

The problem with Okami was that it a PS2 exclusive at launch, the same year the PS3 came out (2006) and we (Europe) only got that game a year later.

 

Beyond Good an Evil is a perfect example of this narrative though. Some games just don't click, no mater how good they are.

[KSTORM-25]

$90 CAD for PS5 games at launch, nah I’m not supporting anyone with prices like that 

[scemopagliaccioh]

Developers need to fix the prices of games on stores different  than the american one in the first place, then we can talk about day one purchase.

Still, I'm glad it ended this way, yeah bought the game at around 25 euros, I learned my lesson in not waiting Sony games to go on plus that is, but it's about time devs stop selling brands and branch out, the multiplayer  part seems horrible, and it's betfer to stop there before milking the franchise.