Fotnite is a huge sucess but Paragon is not Overwatch... Very difficulty market where the 3rd party rules...
And COD BLOPs 4 and Battlefield 5 will have battle royale mode too...
Console Exclusives: Significance and Impact *spinoff*
- Thread starter Globalisateur
- Start date
Fotnite is a huge sucess but Paragon is not Overwatch... Very difficulty market where the 3rd party rules...
And COD BLOPs 4 and Battlefield 5 will have battle royale mode too...
Last posted here was $1.3 million a day from mobile thanks to cosmetics. Profit is probably hard to gauge because it can count as engine development. Dunno what it was doing before that on PC and PS4 where it's very free to play.
Multiplayer games tend to need a lower player base to be profitable through.
But i wonder if it's a good strategy for a constructor to put too much pressure on 3P developpers.
It's like there's a tacit agreement between Sony and other developpers : let us the single player market and we will let you the multiplayer one.
I think the gameindustry article is spot on. Sony complement really well 3rd party.
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/amp/2018-04-20-sonys-studios-continue-their-winning-streak
Edit: I the link was added to a post above, still a good eye opener for those who still don't get it.
Edit: I the link was added to a post above, still a good eye opener for those who still don't get it.
Last edited:
Silent_Buddha
Legend
They were basically printing cash even before the mobile version hit (cosmetics are popular even on PC and console). The mobile version just scaled that up massively.
Basically as soon as they included a Battle Royale mode that was far more casual friendly than PUBG, they started making money hand over fist. Their huge marketing push on Twitch (sponsored streamers) also gave it a massive push into the consciousness of very vocal players, and now it has a life of its own.
The good thing is that unlike For Honor which had a similar Twitch focused marketing push that sold a lot of copies of the game, they didn't just maintain momentum for the game but grew it for a variety of reasons (more casual friendly, less bugs, no player balance issues due to non-symmetrical classes, etc.).
Regards,
SB
@iroboto is right - the Internet just reads B3D to see what the hot topics are and writes articles based on us.
Fortnite has earned over $126 Million in February alone: https://www.gamewatcher.com/news/2018-20-04-fortnite-has-earned-over-126-million-in-february-alone
'Fortnite' Is Earning $1M A Day On Mobile, Players Are Spending More Time With It Than Tinder: https://www.forbes.com/sites/insert...g-more-time-with-it-than-tinder/#455cd7c9d837
Last edited:
Silent_Buddha
Legend
So what you are saying is that anyone that likes Uncharted must like Gears of War, otherwise what they say is pure "bullshit" as you say?
And anyone that likes TLOU "must" like Gears of War?
Ummm, yeah, that's pure bullshit. All of those statements is as silly as when you said...
While the gameplay in those are superficially similar, they aren't all THAT similar.
It's like saying that the original Doom and the original COD are both FPS games so anyone that likes one must by necessity like the other. And that's patently false as they are 2 completely different implementations of the FPS genre. While there's a great deal of overlap in people that like both, there's also a great deal of people that like one but dislike the other.
With the latest God of War, I'm finding the story interesting, but the gameplay uninteresting which is a complete 180 from the all the other God of War games. Granted, I've only gone through the first hour or so of the game (up to the first "god" fight, very cool), so my opinion could change, but there are so many things that just annoy me. The juggle mechanics are oddly disjointed. Hungry wolves that completely ignore the boy? Wolves by nature go after the weak, sickly, and young before going after prey that is more of a threat to them. The draug ignore the boy as well. At least the Troll fight had a pretense of the troll going after the boy which is much appreciated. I completely understand it's for gameplay reasons, but it's still annoying.
Gameplay is better than most open world games, but it still has a lot of open world tropes that pull me out of the game. For instance, Track this deer son! But, uh, hold on there's a chest here. Oh and I have to loot this burial casket here. Oh wait, there's a side path with stuff I don't want to miss. Again, I understand it's to support open world like gameplay. But then that's gameplay I don't find fun or attractive in the first place.
When will people understand that not everyone likes the same thing. The new GOW should end up being a huge success. There's a lot of good things in there (combat at higher difficulties is almost souls like, but without the weighty feel of a souls game) and while I found the story off putting at the start, it's growing on me. It's still not a game I would buy even if it was on a platform I own. That said, I expect this title to do significantly better than previous GOW games. TPS open world games (even though the first hour or so of GOW that I've played has been very linear) is the genre of choice right now if you want to sell a lot of games. Combine it with a good story and it's hard to fail.
Regards,
SB
I see a lot of potential. Currently, Battle Royal players have to deal with comic characters or an unfinished and flawed korean game. The crowd doesn't want a Battle Royal COD game with 20 players but a huge one with 100+ players.
You're moving the discussion. Whether Sony should or should not create a BR game is a rather specific request. This thread is about the value of exclusives and what Sony's doing and what they get from it, and why they aren't creating multiplayer shooters in general. for all we know, they have a BR game in the works as it's a new genre with room for new challengers.
So magically all the gameplay on a Sony exclusives just don't "do it" it for you? I guess I don't have this issue. A good TPS is a good TPS, Gears or Uncharted. It's not really about the small differences, they are just both good games with similar mechanics. Sorry if I find it hard to believe that a metacritic 70-85 game is great while 90-95 is "uninteresting" or some other nebulous pejorative. Quantum Break and Gear 4, awesome. Uncharted 4 or THLoU, meh.
But this will go nowhere, you can fill pages with why you don't prefer them and there is no way to prove or disprove anything. You simply don't like very specific, very popular and well reviewed games.
Oh come on, you know what you said is like saying "If you like Marvel movies you should like DC movies" and then getting all enraged when people don't like Batman vs Superman or Justice League.
Stop trying to force your views onto others.
Take your own advice and embrace "Different strokes for different folks."
Silent_Buddha
Legend
And yet I don't see you calling out other people on the forum for being BS fanboys if they like Uncharted but don't like Gears. Or if they liked TLOU but didn't like Uncharted. Or if they liked Uncharted but didn't like TLOU. Etc. Only if it's someone that likes Gears but doesn't like Uncharted or TLOU do you call them out or some other combination of liking X Non-Sony game but not liking Y Sony game.
Regards,
SB
lol heh I'm good right@iroboto is right - the Internet just reads B3D to see what the hot topics are and writes articles based on us.
sucking these threads straight up with a straw
I was just thinking about a roundtable discussion with sony's big name directors last E3, they explained how the time frame from idea to launch takes them 7 years. (obviously I would assume a sequel takes much much less time). Not sure what that means for Death Stranding, I'm a bit worried.
So the moment to make a decision in order to have new IPs with competitive AAA quality this year... was 7 years ago! Maybe it's not that bad, because a lot of people work ideas in parallel, it's just a question of deciding which one goes to the next step of development and throw money at the most promising ideas.
When there is a hole in the line up it's not the people currently in charge who are responsible, they have to deal with a past decision from another executive. I'm speculating about Mattrick having caused the current lack of 1P, and if Spencer increased investment into story-driven projects when he took over, the fruits won't be ripe for a while.
ah i see. Yes, definitely takes a _long_ real long time to make a good AAA. Not to mention the experience needed to launch a title as well.
I was thinking you were referring along the lines of MS having paid research that showed that:
a) marketing that 3P games were enough to move consoles (ie COD)
b) TV was more important than games
c) MP was more important than single player
and that they acted on it and it failed them.