Quantcast
After 10 days, Fallout 76 already heavily discounted.

Forums - Sales Discussion - After 10 days, Fallout 76 already heavily discounted.

The UK's version of gamestop is selling Pre-owned Spiderman for £5 more than New Fallout 76..



Around the Network
jason1637 said:
I'll be free by the end of the year.

Still too expensive.



BraLoD said:
jason1637 said:
I'll be free by the end of the year.

Still too expensive.

QA testers get paid to play after all.

Last edited by ArchangelMadzz - on 25 November 2018

Fallout 76% off



German YouTuber and Streamer:
StarCraft and Fallout 4 currently.

Me trying to write reviews:
Octopath Traveler

Amazon August 2019 thread

This definitely was a game no one wanted. It's poor content and gameplay has also had the added benefit of making people actually focus on the glitches, as well. Hopefully that will stop people from giving the next Elder Scrolls 9s and 10s, completely ignoring the buggy mess it is, when they wouldn't ignore those things in a non-Bethesda game.



Around the Network

BFV launched later and was $25 at some places for Black Friday.

I’d easily buy at $40, hell $60, game looks great. Want to finish RDR first though.



thismeintiel said:
This definitely was a game no one wanted. It's poor content and gameplay has also had the added benefit of making people actually focus on the glitches, as well. Hopefully that will stop people from giving the next Elder Scrolls 9s and 10s, completely ignoring the buggy mess it is, when they wouldn't ignore those things in a non-Bethesda game.

No one ignores it.  All the reviews I read for Fallout 4 mentioned bugs the writer ran into.  I'm pretty sure they did the same for Skyrim.  You mean "but they gave it a good score anyway" instead of ignored?  Get over it.  Most writers probably never ran into serious bugs.  If they gave it a good score then that means the fun they had playing exceeded the negatives.  



pokoko said:
thismeintiel said:
This definitely was a game no one wanted. It's poor content and gameplay has also had the added benefit of making people actually focus on the glitches, as well. Hopefully that will stop people from giving the next Elder Scrolls 9s and 10s, completely ignoring the buggy mess it is, when they wouldn't ignore those things in a non-Bethesda game.

No one ignores it.  All the reviews I read for Fallout 4 mentioned bugs the writer ran into.  I'm pretty sure they did the same for Skyrim.  You mean "but they gave it a good score anyway" instead of ignored?  Get over it.  Most writers probably never ran into serious bugs.  If they gave it a good score then that means the fun they had playing exceeded the negatives.  

Get over it, huh?  Nah, I think I will continue to point out hypocrisy where I see it.  When someone allows "fun" to override an objective look at a game, I can no longer take them seriously as a reviewer.  Of course, I think it has a little more to do with it than just "fun."  Read $$$.



pokoko said:
ArchangelMadzz said:

I'm happy that finally after years the industry is making Bethesda stand trial for their awfully buggy and poorly put together games.

Stop being melodramatic.  There is no "on trial," that's just your projection.  The next Elder Scrolls is going to sell millions of copies.  People just didn't want this particular game that isn't even made by the same studio.  

You can certainly get/earn a reputation and it might not impact short term, but the more you play to that reputation the worse it gets for you as a company and it *will* impact sales long term.

If Bethesda keep releasing games that are falling behind technically, design wise and buggy, then unfortunately they will lose sales and they will get less sales. Imagine the sales of the next Elder Scrolls if its using the same engine with the same issues, and a Spiderman or horizon or Red dead engine... there is no doubt it will impact the sales in millions.



Making an indie game : Dead of Day!

thismeintiel said:
pokoko said:

No one ignores it.  All the reviews I read for Fallout 4 mentioned bugs the writer ran into.  I'm pretty sure they did the same for Skyrim.  You mean "but they gave it a good score anyway" instead of ignored?  Get over it.  Most writers probably never ran into serious bugs.  If they gave it a good score then that means the fun they had playing exceeded the negatives.  

Get over it, huh?  Nah, I think I will continue to point out hypocrisy where I see it.  When someone allows "fun" to override an objective look at a game, I can no longer take them seriously as a reviewer.  Of course, I think it has a little more to do with it than just "fun."  Read $$$.

Right, like "fun" isn't kind of important when it comes to videogames.  You're totally right, game reviews should just be based around technical merits.  "Fun" shouldn't matter.  

The funny thing is, when someone no longer credits how much "fun" a game is, I can no longer take them seriously as a reviewer.  That's kind of why I play games to start with so it's rather important to me.  I know people really like to whine about review scores but I don't think I've ever heard anyone try to claim that enjoyment isn't an important aspect.