Sony Days Gone OT - Queasy Rider (Update: Horde DLC)

[Brian]

This strikes me as a Ubisoft game where it will be talked about for a week then completely forgotten until an article comes out saying it sold more than God of War. 

[fuckle85]

1 hour ago, Duderino said:

 

Good reviews would certainly help, but by the day it’s becoming increasingly clear that there is a large amount of buzz surrounding the game.  Days Gone has its detractors for sure, but the concerned rhetoric is looking increasingly out of touch with the game’s sales potential.

 

For a little context Days Gone is currently the #1 selling PS4 tittle on Amazon.  Comparatively MK11, the other big April release, is sitting at #10.

 

Again, I'm making a distinction between sales numbers success, critical reception and word of mouth hype - for example the difference between How Call of Duty Advanced Warfare is remembered and Bioshock 1 is.

 

Though to be fair potential sales success can be easier to quantify.

[skillzdadirecta]

30 minutes ago, fuckle85 said:

 

Again, I'm making a distinction between sales numbers success, critical reception and word of mouth hype - for example the difference between How Call of Duty Advanced Warfare is remembered and Bioshock 1 is.

 

Though to be fair potential sales success can be easier to quantify.

 

Both sold well, were critical successes and are remembered fondly. What exactly are you trying to say?

[fuckle85]

7 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

Both sold well, were critical successes and are remembered fondly. What exactly are you trying to say?

 

Advanced Warfare sold significantly more than  Bioshock 1 did. A LOT more.  The latter is mostly remembered as an iconic moment from last gen that brought new experiences to the table: art direction, storytelling, world building.  Clunky shooting mechanics aside,  it's remembered as a pivotal moment in video games to this day.  Fans still dress up as Bioshock characters at game cons, there are still discussions going on about it's story and world, etc.  Is the same true for Advanced Warfare?  Is it as revered to this day? Or is it more accurate to say the latest Call of Duty tends to have more relevance in the minds os audiences than past entries of the franchise (with some exceptions, like Modern Warfare). There are several games which have passable sales, or even sell terribly, but seem to be in the lexicon longer than many top selling games. And many games sell very well but are not much better than shovelware.

 

Point being, in long term, the pop cultural impact of a game matters.  Not that audiences always get it right, but it gets to a point where hype is almost palatable leading up to a game's release, and a good indication of not only how much it might sell, but how long it continues to sell and how impactful it is with audiences. Sometimes the reverse of hype can happen too which can turn on a franchise.  Anthem comes to mind.  Before the game was even out you could practically feel the disappointment in the air. It sold well, but poor reviews and word of mouth are not doing it any favors.  Though sometimes poor critical reception alone doesn't kill a franchise.  From what I understand multiplayer games usually fare better than single player ones in that regard.  

 

Anyway, both critical response, fan reaction, and sales numbers matter simultaneously, and sometimes messageboards like Resetera and NeoGaf, while not indicative of everyone playing video games, have such an immense amount of users that sometimes they can be accurate indicators of how a game will be received.

 

This is what I meant (sales, critical response, fan reaction) when I said "Days Gone might do ok" in my initial post ITT

 

[skillzdadirecta]

2 minutes ago, fuckle85 said:

 

Advanced Warfare sold significantly more than  Bioshock 1 did. A LOT more.  The latter is mostly remembered as an iconic moment from last gen that brought new experiences to the table: art direction, storytelling, world building.  Clunky shooting mechanics aside,  it's remembered as a pivotal moment in video games to this day.  Fans still dress up as Bioshock characters at game cons, there are still discussions going on about it's story and world, etc.  Is the same true for Advanced Warfare?  Is it as revered to this day? Or is it more accurate to say the latest Call of Duty tends to have more relevance in the minds os audiences than past entries of the franchise (with some exceptions, like Modern Warfare). There are several games which have passable sales, or even sell terribly, but seem to be in the lexicon longer than many top selling games. And many games sell very well but are not much better than shovelware.

 

Point being, in long term, the pop cultural impact of a game matters.  Not that audiences always get it right, but it gets to a point where hype is almost palatable leading up to a game's release, and a good indication of not only how much it might sell, but how long it continues to sell and how impactful it is with audiences. Sometimes the reverse of hype can happen too which can turn on a franchise.  Anthem comes to mind.  Before the game was even out you could practically feel the disappointment in the air. It sold well, but poor reviews and word of mouth are not doing it any favors.  Though sometimes poor critical reception alone doesn't kill a franchise.  Multiplayer games usually fare better than single player ones though, from what I understand.  

 

Anyway, both critical response, fan reaction, and sales numbers matter simultaneously, and sometimes messageboards like Resetera and NeoGaf, while not indicative of everyone playing video games, have such an immense amount of users that sometimes they can be accurate indicators of how a game will be received.

 

 

 

If you think Bioshock had more of an impact on the game industry than COD Advanced Warfare then... I don't know what to say. And I think message boards are closed environments that often take on their own subjective realities that have little to nothing to do with what is actually happening in the real world. Like everywhere else on the internet, they can lead to confirmation bias amongst likeminded people and videogame message boards are no different. In the minds of a lot board dwellers, games and movies in particular that are successful (from financial, critical, and audience perspectives) are seen as failures for reasons I STILL have yet to understand and vice versa. Again. you're arguing that pop cultural impact matters and then diminish the cultural impact that one of the most popular games ever (COD Advanced Warfare) has had on the industry. 

[fuckle85]

5 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

If you think Bioshock had more of an impact on the game industry than COD Advanced Warfare then... I don't know what to say. And I think message boards are closed environments that often take on their own subjective realities that have little to nothing to do with what is actually happening in the real world. Like everywhere else on the internet, they can lead to confirmation bias amongst likeminded people and videogame message boards are no different. In the minds of a lot board dwellers, games and movies in particular that are successful (from financial, critical, and audience perspectives) are seen as failures for reasons I STILL have yet to understand and vice versa. Again. you're arguing that pop cultural impact matters and then diminish the cultural impact that one of the most popular games ever (COD Advanced Warfare) has had on the industry. 

 

I'd be interested in hearing why you think Advanced Warfare, which, as far as I know is mostly remembered for digital Kevin Spacey, had more impact on games and pop culture in general than Bioshock.  Bioshock is not only a huge influence for many games ranging from Soma to We the Happy People to much of Arkane's output, but also influential in other media (the makers of Westworld and Guillermo del Toro for example, cite it as an influence)

 

Message boards feel that way because one of the common threads (no pun intended) regarding the tone of discourse on online forums is that most everything comes down to complaining and arguing.  I've accepted over time that for the most part this seems to be the primary social function of the message board (that and trolling and various forms of abuse that would get someone punked out in reality).  And as someone who works in the entertainment industry, you deserve to vent about that more than most. 

 

I just think, due to the nature of how prevalent the internet and by extension social media is, boards and places like twitter and reddit indicate a fairly accurate sample size of audiences who consume entertainment.  The frustrating part is that passions often seem to overtake critical thinking which can have negative consequences in society and on the entertainment industry itself.  Even on resetera, I'm often met with bewilderment and pushback for pointing out the uselessness of "clout" unless it's a director or writer who already has an insanely consistent track record, like a Tarantino or Charlie Kaufman.  The amount of judgement and assumptions from most of the public about who is talented enough to be trusted to helm a film should mean zilch in a post-Krasinski and Peele world, but you still see doubters, haters and dick-riders all the time.  This kind of behavior gets you laughed out of creative industries, so it's odd and amusing that so many passionate movie/game/music/etc fans online seem oblivious to it while continuing to engage in it themselves.

[Paperclyp]

We need to clarify what the hell we're talking about. 

 

Call of Duty Advanced Warfare was released in 2014 and didn't inspire shit. 

 

Call of Duty Modern Warfare was released right around Bioshock 1 and is regularly cited as one of the most influential games of all time. I assume this is what fuckle (lol) is talking about, and if that's the case he / she is quite misinformed about the general perception of that game. 

[Paperclyp]

Wait - you actually DO mean Advanced Warfare? 

 

This changes everything and is a very odd argument to make. 

[fuckle85]

4 hours ago, Paperclyp said:

We need to clarify what the hell we're talking about. 

 

Call of Duty Advanced Warfare was released in 2014 and didn't inspire shit. 

 

Call of Duty Modern Warfare was released right around Bioshock 1 and is regularly cited as one of the most influential games of all time. I assume this is what fuckle (lol) is talking about, and if that's the case he / she is quite misinformed about the general perception of that game. 

No, I'm talking about Advanced Warfare. 

 

It wasn;t a top-selling game in that series but it still sold a lot!  It's a COD game, after all.

 

 

4 hours ago, Paperclyp said:

Wait - you actually DO mean Advanced Warfare? 

 

This changes everything and is a very odd argument to make. 

 

The reason I mentioned it is because even though it was undoubtedly one of the top selling titles of that year, it had very little impact beyond that.  This is true of several games in the COD series.  Point being, again, that sales are just one component that determine how truly successful a game will end up being.  You have to factor in critical reception and how a game resonates with audiences as well.

[crispy4000]

The idea that we should be downplaying a game as something lesser because it might not become an internet forum/gamer culture darling is ridiculous.  Not every game needs to strive for that in order to be good, or even to bring something new to the table.  I also don’t think it helps to see it black & white, since there’s a spectrum between popoluar and enthusiast appeal.  That appeal often isn’t mutually exclusive, either, as I don’t expect it to be here.

 

But to play along, if Days Gone needed to make its mark in something beyond its general quality or sales, I think it’s evident that the hoard tech and way the game’s animal/human/zombie factions migrate and interact is a start.  We haven’t seen a game go this quite far with it in either respect.  It strikes me as something that could only be realized this generation.  How often can that be said?

 

It’s a more reasonable to question the game’s eventual quality at release than if it’s doing anything of particular note.  It wouldn’t have gotten so much attention at its initial E3 showing if it wasn’t.  

 

Oh, and being a first entry in a new franchise is very different scenario than a game in a popular annualized series.  Apples to oranges comparison, especially when it comes to long-standing impact and franchisement.

[CastlevaniaNut18]

Man, I've been so awful at playing games lately, maybe this will get me back into them.

[skillzdadirecta]

Oh he meant Advanced Warfare not Modern Warfare which is what I thought he was talking about... NOW his @fuckle85 point makes a little more sense. So it was MY mistake not his... I got my COD'S confused 

[SaysWho?]

Just now, skillzdadirecta said:

Oh he meant Advanced Warfar not Modern Warfare which is what I thought he was talking about... NOW his @fuckle85 point makes a little more sense. So it was MY mistake not his... I got my COD'S confused 

 

Cod damn it, man.

[fuckle85]

4 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

The idea that we should be downplaying a game as something lesser because it might not become an internet forum/gamer culture darling is ridiculous.  Not every game needs to strive for that in order to be good, or even to bring something new to the table.  I don’t think it helps to see it black & white either, as there’s a spectrum between popoluar and enthusiast appeal.  It often isn’t mutually exclusive either, as I don’t expect it to be here.

 

But to play along, if Days Gone needed to make its mark in something beyond its general quality or sales, I think it’s evident that the hoard tech and way the game’s animal/human/zombie factions migrate and interact is a start.  We haven’t seen a game go this quite far with it in either respect.  It strikes me as something that could only be realized this generation.  How often can that be said in earnest?

 

At this point, It’s a more reasonable to question the game’s eventual quality at release than if it’s doing anything of particular note.  It wouldn’t have gotten so much attention at its initial E3 showing if it wasn’t.

 

Oh, and being a first entry in a new franchise is very different scenario than a game in a popular annualized series.  Apples to oranges comparison, especially when it comes to long-standing impact.

 

Yep. We're mostly in agreement here as I've already touched upon several points you've mentioned in this post, but just so we're 100% on the same page, if the bolded statement is intended to be a reaction to my arguments ITT keep in mind once you read my posts carefully that the idea you're talking about isn't a claim I made or a stance I've personally taken.  I DO think it might be a common perception often seen expressed on messageboards though (and offline too, for that matter) and it can to some extent dictate the success of some games and much of the content that gets produced in the industry, for better or worse.  If you were to hear me speak at length about this you'd realize I have a somewhat cynical view of video game consumers for the most part.

 

 

3 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Oh he meant Advanced Warfar not Modern Warfare which is what I thought he was talking about... NOW his @fuckle85 point makes a little more sense. So it was MY mistake not his... I got my COD'S confused 

 

I think I might have actually typed in Modern Warfare in one of my earlier edits (or possibly Infinite Warfare).  I'm tellin' ya, it's almost like there's a fuckton of COD games and most of them, despite selling a lot, aren't that memorable!  hehe

[Mercury33]

22 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Oh he meant Advanced Warfare not Modern Warfare which is what I thought he was talking about... NOW his @fuckle85 point makes a little more sense. So it was MY mistake not his... I got my COD'S confused 

 

Lol I thought he meant Modern Warfare we well and was about to GO OFF. Then reread it and was like “oh yeah, his point makes sense” 😂

 

[crispy4000]

5 hours ago, fuckle85 said:

 

Yep. We're mostly in agreement here as I've already touched upon several points you've mentioned in this post, but just so we're 100% on the same page, if the bolded statement is intended to be a reaction to my arguments ITT keep in mind once you read my posts carefully that the idea you're talking about isn't a claim I made or a stance I've personally taken.  I DO think it might be a common perception often seen expressed on messageboards though (and offline too, for that matter) and it can to some extent dictate the success of some games and much of the content that gets produced in the industry, for better or worse.  If you were to hear me speak at length about this you'd realize I have a somewhat cynical view of video game consumers for the most part.

Ultimately, I don't think Days Gone is one of those games that message board/enthusiast reactions will determine the success of in any meaningful way.

I've grown more and more doubtful about that influence as a whole for AAA titles.  I suppose for some 'ongoing' games it can lead to playerbase drops.  Games with heavy online components do have something to worry about.  But out of the gate?  Battlefront 2 under-performed only marginally, a total mismatch to the extent of the uproar.  Fallout 76 and Anthem still dramatically outsold many (better) games the month of their releases.  A good marketing campaign seems to underwrite any noise enthusiast gamers make (ie: polarizing takes of RDR2).  Or even a lack of discussion and so-called 'hype' (ie: Ghost Recon Wildlands).

It shows how little influence we have for big budget game launches.  I share your cynicism in how gamers can impact developers with smaller budgets.  I've seen communities target and take down games and I very much enjoyed.  But if a game is big enough to get a television commercial, I've resigned to the enthusiasts not affecting much of anything in the beginning.  Most of these games are going to sell anyways.

The only "death sentence" seems to be if the publisher misread the popular appeal.  Or can't sustain momentum if the game is 'ongoing.'

After Anthem, Fallout 76, No Man's Sky, Street Fighter V, etc, I question if shipping a complete game is even a prerequisite.  It's much better to be in that position than misreading what the general gaming public wants.

[fuckle85]

2 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

Ultimately, I don't think Days Gone is one of those games that message board/enthusiast reactions will determine the success of in any meaningful way. 

I've grown more doubtful and more doubtful about that influence as a whole for AAA titles.  I suppose for some 'ongoing' games it can lead to playerbase drops.  Games with heavy online components have something to worry about.  But out of the gate?  Battlefront 2 under-performed only marginally, a total mismatch to the extent of the uproar.  Fallout 76 and Anthem still outsold better games the month of their releases.  A good marketing campaign seems to underwrite any noise enthusiast gamers make (ie: polarizing takes of RDR2).  Or even a lack of discussion and so-called 'hype' (ie: Ghost Recon Wildlands).

It shows how little power we have at big budget game launches.  I could share your cynicism in how gamers can impact developers with smaller budgets.  I've seen it done effectively, and maliciously, with games I very much enjoyed.  But if a game is big enough to get a television commercial, we're not affecting much of anything.  Big budget, open-world games with a mainstream pitch are going to sell anyways.  That's just how I see it now.

The only "death sentence" is if the publisher misread the popular appeal.  Or can't sustain momentum if the game is 'ongoing.'

 

Thing is, lots of devs take note of feedback from message boards, and the audience's response to a game can affect to varying degrees what current and future decisions a studio makes, indie OR major.  Sites like Reddit, NeoGaf and Era are so active with so many users that it's odd there would be any distinction made between players on those boards and the rest of your audience.  Users on those sites are a significant portion of your audience after all (though there's definitely an argument to be made about how much stock should be put in most opinions expressed on online forums, which feedback is constructive vs short sighted, toxic, etc).

 

There are many examples of this ranging from positive to negative.  Capcom tried to make a more simplified Devil May Cry game with DMC2, and it was the last time that happened. Mass Effect fans were livid over 3's ending, so it was retconned because reasons.  MGS fans throwing fits over Raiden in MGS2 inspired some later gags in the series, possibly even that character's development (you have to wonder to what extent Raiden becoming the most badass cyborg ninja in the series was an intentional subversion of what many MGS fans felt about him years eariler). 

 

Remember that cringey period from the early-mid 2000's when several games suddenly became "mature", AKA added more guns, blood and tits and "edginess"?  Also remember how many other Overwatch-likes there were for a minute (Lawbreakers, Battleborne, etc)?  And now multiplayer shooters are of course trending away from games like Overwatch towards battle royale modes.

 

Then there's Mass Effect: Andromeda. It sold well!  It was the second best selling ME game ever, but the controversy surrounding the quality of the game itself (specifically with graphics and story) played a significant role in the series being put on hiatus.  Audience feedback not only influences some creative decisions from studios; it can have a domino effect on which franchises and industry trends are popular, relevant or irrelevant. 

 

These are some examples that illustrate the fact that not just sales but also critic and audience reception can in part dictate industry trends and what happens to  IPs.  A game like Days Gone might sell fine at first, but reviews and word of mouth can impact how well it keeps selling and what the sequels will be like, if any. Ultimately, most video games are not intended as art as much as escapist entertainment products, so consumers have quite a bit of pull regarding what gets made and how it's made.

 

So far I think Days Gone seems like a game where reviews could influence how successful it is. If its gameplay and story delivers and results in some respectable review scores, I imagine it'll transcend the "eh, kinda seems like another zombie apocalypse game" concerns to allow it to become something special, whereas lukewarm reviews could cement it as just another open world zombie game, even if sales are good initially.  

[crispy4000]

I'd bet AAA publishers/developers listen much more intently to their focus group testers and mock reviewers than forum posters, especially prior to release.

After release, forums/reddit/reviews become the vocal minority of their player-pool who cares enough to talk about the game critically.  I agree that it shapes future development.  But there's still a balance to be struck between addressing those opinions, creative vision and appeal writ large.  Of those, the latter two are probably the most important to commercial success for an AAA game.

The fact that Mass Effect Andromedia sold well only supports what I'm saying here.  We can talk about how much it tarnished the name of the franchise.  How EA reacted by shutting the developer down as a response (as they do).  But the game still did well, in spite of ME3's ending too.  Like the Star Wars prequels, people will knowingly partake in messy follow-ups just to experience it for themselves.  Forum dwellers and casual audiences alike.

To piggyback off what you said earlier in this thread, I believe Days Gone could review in the upper 70's and still sell great, get sequels, etc.  That would be taking a page straight out of Ubisoft's playbook.  I think you're overestimating how much quality matters for a first entry, especially when it attracts as much attention as this game has been getting.

[fuckle85]

1 hour ago, crispy4000 said:

I'd bet AAA publishers/developers listen much more intently to their focus group testers and mock reviewers than forum posters, especially prior to release.

After release, forums/reddit/reviews become the vocal minority of their player-pool who cares enough to talk about the game critically.  I agree that it shapes future development.  But there's still a balance to be struck between addressing those opinions, creative vision and appeal writ large.  Of those three, the latter two are probably the most important to commercial success for an AAA game.

The fact that Mass Effect Andromedia sold so well also supports what I'm saying here.  We can talk about how much it tarnished the name of the franchise.  How EA reacted by shutting the developer down as a response (as they do).  But the game still sold well, in spite of ME3's ending too.  Like the Star Wars prequels, people will knowingly partake in messy follow-ups just to experience it for themselves.  Forum dwellers and casual audiences alike.

To piggyback off what you said earlier in this thread, I believe Days Gone could review in the upper 70's and still sell great, get sequels, etc.  That would be taking a page straight out of Ubisoft's playbook.

 

One would hope the opinions of industry peers and really anyone who can offer insightful critique are prioritized, but game IPs often live or die by consumer opinion too, so seems like that would be considered as well.

 

I'm not sure how the response to a game on twitter or massive forums like Era or r/gaming would that of a vocal minority.  If anything wouldn't those be useful sources of feedback developers might check to know the general public's reaction to their games?

 

Errrm, no, that Mass Effect Andromeda example I mentioned doesn't really support your point at all, lol.  It sold very well, but mixed reviews and consumer backlash were the nail in the coffin of not only that game, but the entire franchise.  For a while, at least.

 

Anywho, I'm rooting for Bend, but I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that success of Days Gone isn't guaranteed.

[Duderino]

I do believe with the right marketing, open-wilderness action survival horror, as a game concept, can sell plenty well.

[stepee]

man that advanced warfare argument was frustrating to read waiting for someone to point out modern warfare is a different game 

[crispy4000]

8 hours ago, fuckle85 said:

 

I'm not sure how the response to a game on twitter or massive forums like Era or r/gaming would that of a vocal minority.  If anything wouldn't those be useful sources of feedback developers might check to know the general public's reaction to their games?
 

I say it's a vocal minority because most people who play games don't care enough to participate in internet message boards to discuss them.  The people spending effort detailing what could be changed are the enthusiasts.  There is such a thing as a forum bubble.

Twitter does give a better gauge.  Same with Youtube.  (Days Gone has tracked well on both.)  But unless there's a sustained outcry, a lot of that just ends up being white noise for games with large marketing budgets.  Pre-release, the metrics are worth more than content of that commentary.  Even if it's just a confirmation that they had a pitch that can sell.
 

8 hours ago, fuckle85 said:

Errrm, no, that Mass Effect Andromeda example I mentioned doesn't really support your point at all, lol.  It sold very well, but mixed reviews and consumer backlash were the nail in the coffin of not only that game, but the entire franchise.  For a while, at least.

Mass Effect isn't dead.  Andromeda sold too well for it to be.  The only real casualty is Bioware Montreal.

It's a lot safer to return to it than EA's dormant IPs that had commercial bombs.  If it takes a while before we get another, it'll be because Bioware has too much else on their plate.  Sames goes for Bethesda and Fallout.
 

8 hours ago, fuckle85 said:

Anywho, I'm rooting for Bend, but I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that success of Days Gone isn't guaranteed.

Anything could happen.  But it would be an outlandish prediction to think it won't be at this point.  Like I said, at worst, it looks like the Ubisoft playbook.

Did you know that the original Watch Dogs sold over 10 million copies? 
Think about what the perceived reception was to that game post-release.  Then ask yourself if it's reflected in that number.

To clarify, that's not a prediction for Days Gone.  But it's a point worth considering when we talk about reception over time and recipes for AAA success.

[Mercury33]

After watching that story trailer I’m getting more and more hyped for this. 

[fuckle85]

2 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

I say it's a vocal minority because most people who play games don't care enough to participate in internet message boards to discuss them.  The people spending effort detailing what could be changed are the enthusiasts.  There is such a thing as a forum bubble.

Twitter does give a better gauge.  Same with Youtube.  (Days Gone has tracked well on both.)  But unless there's a sustained outcry, a lot of that just ends up being white noise for games with large marketing budgets.  Pre-release, the metrics are worth more than content of that commentary.  Even if it's just a confirmation that they had a pitch that can sell.
 

Mass Effect isn't dead.  Andromeda sold too well for it to be.  The only real casualty is Bioware Montreal.

It's a lot safer to return to it than EA's dormant IPs that had commercial bombs.  If it takes a while before we get another, it'll be because Bioware has too much else on their plate.  Sames goes for Bethesda and Fallout.
 

Anything could happen.  But it would be an outlandish prediction to think it won't be at this point.  Like I said, at worst, it looks like the Ubisoft playbook.

Did you know that the original Watch Dogs sold over 10 million copies? 
Think about what the perceived reception was to that game post-release.  Then ask yourself if it's reflected in that number.

To clarify, that's not a prediction for Days Gone.  But it's a point worth considering when we talk about reception over time and recipes for AAA success.

 

So is it possible to prove that the the combined amount of users observed on twitter and popular message boards reacting to your game aren't expressing opinions that are indicative of the general reaction of the majority of buyers of your game?  If sales are super high, usually reactions online wont effect your IP or studio much, but there are times when it definitely can.

 

I'm not debating that pre-release metrics are more valuable to studios than opinions on social media and messageboards.  I'm pointing out the fact that at some point developers might often take all of those into considerations and make decisions based on that.

 

Mass Effect is/was a massive IP.  Bioware seems to have put it on hold for a long time because they know the sequel to Andromeda would likely not perform nearly as well, going by the reaction to it.  Even though they patched out much of the jank, that first impression was a doozy. If they thought it could still be a huge hit after that I don't see why a sequel wouldn't be greenlit.  Putting a major IP like that on ice is a pretty big deal and shows how consumer opinion and reviews, for better or worse, can sometimes have an impact on IPs and studios as much as sales.

 

Anywho, I feel like this argument has run its course.  For me at least.  Do sales matter? Absolutely.  Do public opinion and reviews also factor into the success of a game? Yes, and that's all I'm trying to point out.

[crispy4000]

I’ll boil down my thoughts to this:

 

For a new single-player IP like this that’s already poised to sell well due to how much it’s being discussed, advertised and pre-ordered, reviews and forum criticism will hardly move the needle.

[skillzdadirecta]

And I'll summarize my thoughts to this... Forums and message boards and even reviews do not significantly represent the public's response or reception to a particular game. Message boards tend to be fickle and insular and the bottom line ( revenue) is far more of a determining factor to what direction companies go in than the perceived reception of message boards. Also Mass Effect Andromeda was successful but the pause on the development of more Mass Effect games seems to be due to the internal disorganization of Bioware and less a reaction to message boards. The development of Anthem and the latest Dragon Age seems to be throwing that whole studio in disarray. I would guess that THAT is more of a reason why Mass Effect is on hold than it's reception from message board posters. Bioware could put out a Mass Effect game next week and it would still sell well... let's not kid ourselves. But the voice of the consumer IS becoming more influential because of the internet, this is definitely true.

[fuckle85]

6 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

And I'll summarize my thoughts to this... Forums and message boards and even reviews do not significantly represent the public's response or reception to a particular game. Message boards tend to be fickle and insular and the bottom line ( revenue) is far more of a determining factor to what direction companies go in than the perceived reception of message boards. Also Mass Effect Andromeda was successful but the pause on the development of more Mass Effect games seems to be due to the internal disorganization of Bioware and less a reaction to message boards. The development of Anthem and the latest Dragon Age seems to be throwing that whole studio in disarray. I would guess that THAT is more of a reason why Mass Effect is on hold than it's reception from message board posters. Bioware could put out a Mass Effect game next week and it would still sell well... let's not kid ourselves. But the voice of the consumer IS becoming more influential because of the internet, this is definitely true.

 

Basically this. Sales ultimately matter more to studios and publishers, but what I was trying and I suppose failing to express is an acknowledgment of the symbiotic relationship between sales numbers, reviews and public perception that can and often does exist. The only thing I have to add/reiterate is I think the extent of how influential the voice of the consumer is can be difficult to quantify and varies depending on the game and studio.  Sometimes popular opinion of players can effect sales of some games, and it's reflected via the reaction online across multiple sources.

[crispy4000]

9 hours ago, fuckle85 said:

 

The only thing I have to add/reiterate is I think the extent of how influential the voice of the consumer is can be difficult to quantify and varies depending on the game and studio.  Sometimes popular opinion of players can effect sales of some games, and it's reflected via the reaction online across multiple sources. 
 

 

For AAA games in specific, I don't think it's too difficult today.  Typically, the larger the production and marketing budget, the less influential a popular opinion is to sales.  (ex: 'wait for a Watch Dogs 2')   Either that popular voice doesn't reach the mainstream to the extent that publisher marketing does, or gamers collectively are like lemmings who migrate from one popularly discussed game to the next.  Probably a bit of both.

If there's a game to show what influence the popular voice can have on AAA games, it's Battlefront 2.  I've never seen a bigger smear campaign for an individual game.  EA did miss their sales target.  9 million copies sold instead of 10 million in the first <2 months of sales.  ... But don't worry, because Fifa's gacha systems made up for the lost revenue.

I can't help but be cynical in these situations.  That was the greatest the popular outcry has been.  EA might have made good, but I'm still stuck with the feeling that they never needed to win us back.

I've also seen recent cries for boycotting THQ Nordic's games.  Don't care at all to partake, but I'm half-expecting Biomutant to get a BOYCOTT boost because it'll grow the game's profile.

 

[Duderino]

3 hours ago, fuckle85 said:

 

Basically this. Sales ultimately matter more to studios and publishers, but what I was trying and I suppose failing to express is an acknowledgment of the symbiotic relationship between sales numbers, reviews and public perception that can and often does exist. The only thing I have to add/reiterate is I think the extent of how influential the voice of the consumer is can be difficult to quantify and varies depending on the game and studio.  Sometimes popular opinion of players can effect sales of some games, and it's reflected via the reaction online across multiple sources.

 

I’d agree that Streams and Lets Plays are having a notable impact when it comes to promoting additional sales.

 

But media that is fueled primarily by criticism and concerns, whether it’s overtly negative articles phishing for clicks, dramatic YouTubers seeking self-affirmation, or drive-by comments on gaming forums or social media, very little if it ever reaches a wide enough audience to make an impact.  Why?  Because the appeal of this content only resonates with a very small, insular group of consumers.

 

The negative voices collectively amount to a drop in a bucket compared to the impact of positive buzz.

[Bloodporne]

I'm curious to see how the raw gameplay and mechanics fare in reviews and impressions. I find the game in general off-putting but am curious how the gunplay and everything will come out. If it's fun, I might pick it up on the cheap later sometime. 

[fuckle85]

13 hours ago, Duderino said:

 

I’d agree that Streams and Lets Plays are having a notable impact when it comes to promoting additional sales.

 

But media that is fueled primarily by criticism and concerns, whether it’s overtly negative articles phishing for clicks, dramatic YouTubers seeking self-affirmation, or drive-by comments on gaming forums or social media, very little if it ever reaches a wide enough audience to make an impact.  Why?  Because the appeal of this content only resonates with a very small, insular group of consumers.

 

The negative voices collectively amount to a drop in a bucket compared to the impact of positive buzz.

 

I think this is an optimistic but potentially inaccurate take.  It's easy to see a message boards thread and the amount of complaining and nitpicking and chalk it up to  "just insulated messageboard culture", but when you're talking about a large accumulative userbase across multiple boards and social media platforms and opinions expressed from various corners of the world, it seems possible to me the internet response to games can be indicative enough of offline reactions as well, and there's not much evidence I'm aware of that contradicts this.  Do you have proof this isn't the case?

 

Also I don't think "a drop in the bucket" accurately describes the extent to which the attitudes of complaining/entitlement/non-constructive criticism/passions/etc you see everywhere on the internet may both reflect and influence the sales and potential cultural impact of games unless you're referring to the far more extreme and toxic subcultures in gaming, which ARE a vocal minority and are definitely not perspectives considered by most of the industry, or even entertained on most of the popular message boards, at least not as much these days. 

 

But there's still a prevalence in other various reactions online, negative or otherwise that you see among game consumers, and game studios still on some level consider these reactions when making their products since one of their main goals is to please a broad audience.

 

That said, unless there's actual quantitative data that can pinpoint the extent of how influential consumer reaction is and how much that, along with streams and professional reviews, impact financial success and cultural impact of a games, we're mostly just a bunch of dudes on a message board speculating here.  

 

One thing that does seem to be pretty clear though is the quality of the game itself can significantly determine how successful critically, culturally and financially it will be, but sometimes this isn't the case either.  

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

 

 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Review embargo lifts on April 25.

[SaysWho?]

On 4/11/2019 at 9:28 AM, crispy4000 said:

 

 

On 4/8/2019 at 2:20 PM, crispy4000 said:

 

 

 

I really enjoyed the horde video and how they constructed it in the game.

 

For those who haven't watched the video yet: the hordes are more an endgame thing that can still be tracked down early in the game, but they talk about how, through testing, people tried to take them on just because they're there, they're migrating, they're in the world, and they wanted to see how they could handle them. You'll probably just die early on, but it is pretty cool that, for a while, they'll be something to avoid or utilize to your advantage against other enemies.

[crispy4000]

4 hours ago, SFLUFAN said:

[podcast beyond clip]

 

 

That must have been the one I was meaning to post when I double-posted, lol.