Shocker. PS4 version will likely outsell XOne version 4:1, given the nature of the game.
Switch is awesome. Although, Xbox has never really done much in Europe, so it's not like this is the craziest thing in the world.
If you think a game is better than CS, ask yourself: were people playing a virtually identical version of the same game ten years ago? Then ask yourself: will people be playing a virtually identical version of this game ten years from now? If you answer no to both questions, reconsider whether you have a legitimate argument.
Not saying this is foolproof, btw, but it will definitely weed out fad answers, because if you'd say PUBG now, you probably would have said Ark l...
@SolidStoner
Playing Siege makes me ask one question - if I'm going to play a game of this style, why not play the best one: Counter-Strike?
While it's a great option for console only people, if you are already a CS player, there's no reason to take a step down. The microtransaction-encouraging progression alone takes it down a notch (locking powerful characters behind extremely high credit requirements).
This is a fantastic, consuner-friendly move. Can't wait to see how the disc-only crowd tries to smear this (while they ironically have Spotify/Netflix on in the background).
I agree to an extent. I understand why the concept of the battle royale genre is appealing, but the gameplay of fortnite is mediocre at best.
Presumably you are implying the switch might beat it; while possible, I think it won't happen unless Nintendo can get close to Sony's sucess outside of U.S./Japan. Everyone likes to pretend those are the only regions that matter, but it was Europe that allowed PS3 to match 360, and it's Europe that has PS4 crushing XONE (it's ahead in U.S., yeah, but the difference is relatively small).
If you are one of those people pushing this game, I assume three things about you:
1. You've played a maximum of one prior Metal Gear Solid game, probably MGS 5.
2. You probably only own an Xbox, and you definitely never owned a PS3.
3. You aren't actually going to buy this game, you just want to annoy MGS/PlayStation fans.
Another reason streaming is stupid.
Lol there are literally more people talking about this game than playing it.
"I don't know because it was all so jumbled up and everyone has the same call sign."
Lol is the concept of a prequel really that difficult for you? When you start up MGS 3 it is made pretty clear that it is set in the 1960s during the Cold War-clearly distinct from the near future setting of MGS 1 & 2. The only people actually confused by the fact that the games take place in multiple eras are people who haven't played any of the games, or people who...
No. Stop with this nonsense. We know you don't actually even believe it. That's like saying the Ps2 was a sub-iteration of the PS1 becasue they were sold simultaneously for awhile and the ps2 played Ps1 games. Your argument fails because the DS can't play 3DS games.
I mean, if by "broad commercial appeal" he means it isn't a bland, multiplatform, games as a service shooter, then yeah, I agree with him. One of the reasons I stick to PlayStation is because they make games like this that can be a success by selling a few million copies (rather than needing to sell 10+ million in the first year, like many of the aforementioned shooters).
@Septic
Would it help if we admitted we just downvoted you because you're you?
No. Battlefront 2 failed. If you are a major corporation like EA, and your big release during the lucrative holiday window sells 50% worse than its predecessor (which had a significantly smaller market to sell to), you don't just say "well it's fine because it still sold X million copies." They had planned on revenue from this game they are not going to get. I know it's easy to be discouraged by your friend's teenage brother who bought Battlefront anyway because ...
@Thunder_G0d_Bane
I'm far more interested in the quality offered to consumers than the number of units sold. As long as their games are selling well enough to support the devs continued growth (which Horizon clearly did) I don't care if it gets outsold by bland, lowest common denominator shooters. My question is why do you care more about corporate bottom lines than the value offered to consumers?
And GG has moved on to making excellent RPGs while Bungie has moved on to chronically disappointing lootbox-loaded games as a service shooters.
Am I the only one who would have guessed it hit 20 million here a long time ago? 3DS came out in 2011. Obviously much better than the Vita, but that isn't saying much.
@Concertoine
Okay, but I'd argue you were generally informed about the state of the industry enough to know that by owning only an Xbox One you were likely to miss out on niche stuff from Atlus/NIS/etc. Honestly, it's probably more surprising this game was even on 360, presumably that was based purely on install base.
Yep. These sorts of patches are exactly why the whole "I buy physical so that I can still play my games when they shut down PSN/Live" rationale totally fails. Yes, you can put the disc in and play something, but without patches it won't be the actual experience, and it many cases it will be pretty broken.