JEECE

You are misreading the article. This is 90% of all games, including mobile apps and console games that do not have a physical version. You are reading it as if it is saying that 90% of sales of games that launch both physically and digitally are digital sales, which isn't the case. Obviously games that only launch digitally can only sell digitally.

This article from earlier this year gives digital percentages for games that launched physically, and gives a much more acc...

Yep, one of the things people overlook now is how quickly game prices drop compared to past generations. PS3 games would stubbornly stay above $45 dollars sometimes for years after the game launched, whereas now, thanks in large part due to the rise of digital sales and retailers' responsive use of sales to incentive physical game purchases, you can regularly get AAA games for 25-33% off within a few months of launch and 50% off within a year. Look at PSN's holiday sale this year or a...

@crazycoconuts

It's rare, but every few years you get an announcement of official numbers by Sony in close proximity to a statement by a specific publisher of the total number of consoles in that generation that have been sold. You can then subtract Sony's number from the total to get Xbox sales.

Also gotta love N4g that I can say basically the same thing as Orchard, and I get even votes while he gets downvoted into oblivion.

Once again VGChartz proves that it's the most accurate source of numbers we have in the absence of official numbers (which we only get a few times a year at best), and yet people's takeaway is that they are trash because they weren't exactly right.

Yep. In an era where cross gen lasts at least three years, there's no point in a mid-gen refresh anyway.

"Well yes that would work but people enjoy progression."

True. This is why I always argue that the gaming community is as much or more to blame than devs for the state of multiplayer gaming today (focus on mtx, live service, GaaS). People playing games now care more about the meta game of unlocking new skins/guns/characters than about playing the game itself. In the 2000s and early 2010s (I know there was multiplayer in the 90s but it was really only on PC and few...

Or just be a real, fair multiplayer game where everyone has access to the same weapons regardless of whether you have played for 2 hours or 200 hours.

You have accidentally identified the problem. There should be no "progression system" for multiplayer games at all. A multiplayer game should be the same experience day one as day one hundred. One player shouldn't have access to better guns/equipment than other players just because they played the game longer. As long as there are items/weapons that affect gameplay walled behind time, there will be options to pay to unlock them, at least in some games.

Yeah Steam Deck has essentially forced strides in Linux gaming, which is awesome.

Yeah it has become fashionable in hindsight to lump RE5 with RE6, but at the time RE5 came out it felt like they were just expanding on RE4, which everyone fawned all over. RE6 really just felt like a more generic third person shooter though with a few signature RE systems.

I mean, they kind of have to, now that they have set the expectation that their games are going to be there. It's the same reason that if there ends up being an Outriders 2, it will have to be on GP. If you condition people to expect your games as part of a subscription, they aren't going to want to buy one at full price later. That would be like releasing the first season of your show on Netflix and then telling people they have to buy the next season digitally or on Blu Ray.

Actually what it seems like is that there is a general consensus that the game is mediocre at best and not particularly funny but that there are also a handful of people on this site trying to create a narrative that the game is awesome and the the media is treating it unfairly.

I would like a native version of TLOU 2 for PS5, but it just isn't worth the amount of whining it would cause.

Yeah I guess they were thinking "get it out by the end of the HBO show's run" rather than the premiere.

I'm not surprised that certain people are pretending like this PC version that we already knew about was just announced.

Weird, I heard that "blah blah blah Nintendo, something about Gabe Newell, the deal is going through."

It's wild how since the existence of VGChartz, a site that has never claimed to provide anything other than estimates of sales (except when directly citing sales numbers from manufacturers), people have always thought they can "own" or "dunk" on the site by pointing out that it only estimates sales and doesn't get them exactly right.

I can't believe this is a Spring 2023 game and they are still making it for PS4 and Xbox One.

The reason people don't think about this is that so much of the games community today started playing games on either the 360 or PS4, so in their minds "gaming" started 10-15 years ago, and the $60 price point is something that is etched in stone that had never increased. It doesn't help that many of these new people don't even try to formulate their own opinions, but simply just parrot the rants of similarly uninformed YouTubers.