Ok, the 100 million install base I'd wager the true pool they have to pull from is much closer to 80 million. Probably less. You're simply adding presumed X1 sales with 360 sales. While on the surface that seems reasonable, you're not factoring in that the overwhelming majority of X1 owners already have a 360. Next 80 million 360's sold doesn't account for all those people with multiple 360's, red ringed 360's, traded in 360's etc. Lastly, Not everyone is ...
This. I'll add that what also worries me is that so far from everything I've read it seems the lesson crystal dynamics learned was "If we do this again, we need to make sure we're doing it with the market leader" not "let's not do this again".
Personally, I own all the platforms and I'm waiting on PS4 to send a message to CD. If I were a fan of street fighter, I'd break my own rule and buy a used copy to show my disapproval.
plenty of difference. New IP, years between some of the titles you mentioned and tomb raider.
See when you have an established multiplatform franchise like tomb raider or street fighter and you go out of your way to pay money to make sure fans of that series can't play it unless they buy your box... bad form. If it's a new IP or resurrecting a dead one like mass effect or ninja gaiden, most see that as fine. Afterall, how can you take something away from me when I didn...
Well you're looking just at numbers which is the mistake CD and squenix made. Perception matters. You put it out a year after the initial launch at $60 and piss off PS4 owners who already have a sour taste in their mouths because of the deal, while it's sitting next to the Xbox one version at $40 or $30...
Not a smart move, especially considering the bulk of the tomb raider audience is on PS4 and the biggest install base this gen is PS4.
Yeah, I have everything you do plus an X1 and really the X1 isn't necessary with the PC. There are some true exclusives on there but not enough for me to buy an X1 if I didn't have the extra cash at the time.
I sill love it and play it every now and again, just not a "must have" for my needs.
poor choice of words. Pretty sure he meant it being shoved into the game, not the SP experience.
Honestly, for me, as long as they don't attach the platinum trophy, or make it mandatory, it doesn't bother me. Don't ask me why the platinum bothers me, I don't really know myself. I would say it's the completionist in me, but then I'd be hunting MP trophies as well.
I think the point of this article went over your head. this isn't about single player gamers going outside their lanes, it's about multiplayer forcing it's way into the single player lane.
It's more about these games getting a tacked on multiplayer to entice those who have to check that box before buying a game.
Now if this article was saying multiplayer as a whole needs to go away, or is inferior or something of that sort, you'd have a point. But it...
Good list. I'd also add the uncharted series, and the last of us.
Just give me all the bioware games, witcher 2, and xcom and I'm happy. Well maybe toss in a little dragon's dogma for good measure.
Doesn't bother me since I put it on my entertainment center and pretty much forget about how it looks after that.
Well they're only expecting to sell about a million of them and there are 30+ million PS4's out there. So I'd say they have their expectations at a reasonable amount.
I don't understand your question. Best I can tell you're wondering how someone can know that PS4 outsold X1 if MS doesn't release their numbers.
If I'm right on that, then the answer is that NPD tracks sales in the US and releases a report that these companies pay for. It's up to each individual company whether or not to reveal their own sales numbers but they can say if they beat the competition.
I think that played a role, but I think where they truly screwed up was their messaging during the launch. Granted I and many others hated what they were trying to pull, but had their sales pitch been better, they could have fooled a very many of us. And while that would have most likely led to the industry being in bad place for gamers, they (xbox) would still be in the lead at least in the US and UK.
to be fair, Xbox is at it's best when in second. While they were viewed as the top dog before this gen launched. they had:
Mattrick instead of Spencer at the helm
mandatory Kinect instead of today's optional non bundled kinect
always online instead no such requirement
TVTVTV, Sports sports sports instead of the now games games games
and so on.
As a primarily Playstation gamer, I'm happy xbox is in 2nd. not because my console "...
Who said it's better because it sold more?
Can you quote that? Not a quote that you inferred that from, an actual quote.
Happy he put party hard on there. I've never heard of it and its now a must buy
Maybe he only played those 10 games the entire year...
This. well, with Zelda being the exception. I haven't kept up with that series to have an opinion one way or the other.
But yeah, this is blatant click bait. Not to mention the title implies that Darklink28 is deciding for us what constitutes a great game.
Dude's just looking for views is all.
hmmm, most interesting article I've read today. I'd like it to, but it'll probably come down to price. We already pay less for games when adjusting for inflation and resources used(payroll, R&D, shipping etc.) I'd be willing to drop and extra $10 per game, but I might be in the minority... probably in the minority.
While I'm firmly in the single player camp, I gotta admit when a game does multiplayer right. I can think of two titles, watch dogs (wasn't intrusive, blended perfectly with single player, and you can shut it off at anytime)and Dragon's Dogma, which wasn't even really multiplayer just online. borrowing/loaning out pawns and sending them back with gifts and quest knowledge was brilliant by my estimation.