Quantcast
Days Gone is Bend Studios highest selling game ever.

Forums - Sony Discussion - Days Gone is Bend Studios highest selling game ever.

Great news. I'll buy it soon enough.

Now let's see how close to the real numbers people estimate based on other Sony titles will put Days Gone.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network

Great for them. Most of the people I know that really really played the game said the game is fantastic.



Cerebralbore101 said:

This makes me happy, because I've been enjoying the hell out of Days Gone so far. Aside from Bethesda level bugs, the game has been great. 

Wait so you are enjoying Days Gone.. and in another thread you said you base your purchases on critics reviews.. and that games with a similar score card are bad games. This game sits on a 71, did you change your mind? 

Goes to show that you can never base your purchase or opinion on a game unless you try it out for yourself.



maybe more than 1,2 million units in the first month ?



Death Stranding PS4-Release: November 8! TLOU2 + FF7Remake =First 2020 Quarter


kirby007 said:
Zombies sell thats why return to castlew olfenstein is so good

They're Freakers... FREAKERS, you imbecile.

OT:

Good on them, but highly marketed AAA games (especially new IPs) scoring poorly typically affects legs more than initial sales. Unless there is a significant disagreement between user and critical reception, sales should plummet. It's the polar opposite effect of niche games scoring well, like say NieR: Automata, which had a poor start but didn't stop selling.



Around the Network
Kyuu said:
kirby007 said:
Zombies sell thats why return to castlew olfenstein is so good

They're Freakers... FREAKERS, you imbecile.

OT:

Good on them, but highly marketed AAA games (especially new IPs) scoring poorly typically affects legs more than initial sales. Unless there is a significant disagreement between user and critical reception, sales should plummet. It's the polar opposite effect of niche games scoring well, like say NieR: Automata, which had a poor start but didn't stop selling.

Frankly resident evil isnt zombies eithermguess what i call them?



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Azzanation said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

This makes me happy, because I've been enjoying the hell out of Days Gone so far. Aside from Bethesda level bugs, the game has been great. 

Wait so you are enjoying Days Gone.. and in another thread you said you base your purchases on critics reviews.. and that games with a similar score card are bad games. This game sits on a 71, did you change your mind? 

Goes to show that you can never base your purchase or opinion on a game unless you try it out for yourself.

Well, like I said before in this thread, reviews were very much either love it or hate it. Most of the time a consensus forms, but for this game there seems to be two camps of reviewers. The first camp says it sucks, and the second camp says it's a great game. There are some middle grounders giving it between a 7 and a 7.8, but those are in the minority. Now, of course when three critics say a game is awesome, and three other critics say a game sucks, then the average aggregate score will be middling. But one of those groups of reviewers has to be wrong.

So I decided to buy the game and play it for several reasons. I wanted to test my own aggregate reviews theory. I like bend studio. I wanted to know which camp of reviewers was right. The negative reviews had nothing negative to say about the game, other than the story was "bad", and the gameplay was overdone. "Oh, another Zombie game, AND another open world game! We are getting tired of this!"

I haven't entirely changed my mind about aggregate reviews being more or less accurate. The needle has definitely been moved in the other direction though. For games that I'm totally excited to play, I'm just going to buy unless they get really, really, bad reviews. I mean like in the low 60's. There might be two or three games that I'm that level of excited about each year though. If enough of these games wind up being a ton of fun, then yes I will slowly, change my mind on aggregate reviews. Right now though, I think Days Gone having such a middling score is just a fluke. Maybe one in ten games, or one in twenty games gets an aggregate score that just isn't accurate. 

As I keep playing games though, if more and more games wind up being fun, despite middling or bad reviews, I'll slowly change my mind. Right now though, I don't think my sample size is big enough. And I've genuinely enjoyed 90-95% of games that have gotten good reviews, that I've played. There are a few games out there that got good reviews, and I didn't like though. They are rare but they exist. And if there's one or two games a year with good reviews, that I didn't like, then it would makes sense for there to be one or two games a year with middling or bad reviews, that I wind up liking. 

P.S. I don't know what kind of games you like or play. I don't even know what systems you have. So what systems do you have, and what games do you like the most? 



The sentence below is false. 
The sentence above is true. 

John2290 said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

Lol me too. My backlog is about 150 games deep right now. 

At some point you have to start shaving off the back end of your backlog, 150 games isn't a backlog it just games going back to the large ocean of games that will never be played, hell even worse than that because they are imprisoned games you are least likely to ever play. Honestly pick a small list of 10, maybe 20 max games out of that and scrap the rest, dip in every now and then and vonstantly change that list up based on mood and when you feel like a certain genre go to your backlog over going to the store, you can manage it but unless you start isolating games to be played you'll only add to it and gorever have the dreaded graveyard of games that have much, muvh less chanve of being played than a full priced 6 month old title because of it's illusion of newness and value even though these (your backlog) games are free to you. Resurrect the dead games with some clever use of folders and will power ;). 

I get what you're saying, and I did do exactly what you said a few years back. Just on a smaller scale. I had some Genesis and N64 games that I planned on beating, but I sold them, because I realized those games had aged past the point of being fun anymore. 

Most of my backlog was built up when I was in college. I didn't have as much time to play games back then, and I lived in a mecca of used game shops. When I was in school I was lucky to get 15 hours a week. I didn't start playing over 20 hours a week again until 2015. And by then the XB1/PS4 generation was in full swing. I expect 2020 and 2021 to be slow years for videogames, so I should be able to catch up during those years. 2013-2014 were pretty slow years for XB1/PS4 in terms of new games. My backlog has always grown and shrunk as each new gen ebbed and flowed. 

And finally, there's a lot of 10-15 hour games in there. Those will be easy to knock out. Lots of SNES/NES/Genesis games.



The sentence below is false. 
The sentence above is true. 

Cerebralbore101 said:

/Sip

My main point is, as long as you try something out for yourself, its when your opinion has weight. Saying something is bad because it scored in the mid 60s or low 70s is never a fair judgement on a game. No different to you liking Day's Gone and you ask your friend to go play it and they turn around and say "no" because the game scored crap on reviews. Ill give you my example.

Dying Light scored a 74 on Meta and I love this game. Its one of the best Zombie games ever made in my opinion and I am glad I tried it out rather than seeing the reviews, and basing my purchase on them. It would have easily been a hard miss if I went in with a review focus in mind.

I grew up with Nintendo, I own all there systems however these days I game on a few devices but primary on PC so I have my fair share of really bad games due to the open platform, however I never let reviews cloud my judgement. I currently play on the PC, Switch, 3DS and a XB1 (Due to Halo and Rare) and plan on getting PSNow once its available in my region. 

Last edited by Azzanation - on 18 June 2019

Cerebralbore101 said:
Azzanation said:

Wait so you are enjoying Days Gone.. and in another thread you said you base your purchases on critics reviews.. and that games with a similar score card are bad games. This game sits on a 71, did you change your mind? 

Goes to show that you can never base your purchase or opinion on a game unless you try it out for yourself.

Well, like I said before in this thread, reviews were very much either love it or hate it. Most of the time a consensus forms, but for this game there seems to be two camps of reviewers. The first camp says it sucks, and the second camp says it's a great game. There are some middle grounders giving it between a 7 and a 7.8, but those are in the minority. Now, of course when three critics say a game is awesome, and three other critics say a game sucks, then the average aggregate score will be middling. But one of those groups of reviewers has to be wrong.

So I decided to buy the game and play it for several reasons. I wanted to test my own aggregate reviews theory. I like bend studio. I wanted to know which camp of reviewers was right. The negative reviews had nothing negative to say about the game, other than the story was "bad", and the gameplay was overdone. "Oh, another Zombie game, AND another open world game! We are getting tired of this!"

I haven't entirely changed my mind about aggregate reviews being more or less accurate. The needle has definitely been moved in the other direction though. For games that I'm totally excited to play, I'm just going to buy unless they get really, really, bad reviews. I mean like in the low 60's. There might be two or three games that I'm that level of excited about each year though. If enough of these games wind up being a ton of fun, then yes I will slowly, change my mind on aggregate reviews. Right now though, I think Days Gone having such a middling score is just a fluke. Maybe one in ten games, or one in twenty games gets an aggregate score that just isn't accurate. 

As I keep playing games though, if more and more games wind up being fun, despite middling or bad reviews, I'll slowly change my mind. Right now though, I don't think my sample size is big enough. And I've genuinely enjoyed 90-95% of games that have gotten good reviews, that I've played. There are a few games out there that got good reviews, and I didn't like though. They are rare but they exist. And if there's one or two games a year with good reviews, that I didn't like, then it would makes sense for there to be one or two games a year with middling or bad reviews, that I wind up liking. 

P.S. I don't know what kind of games you like or play. I don't even know what systems you have. So what systems do you have, and what games do you like the most? 

It is funny with reviewers, they complain about this game being another open world, but will take out points from any game that isn't open or free. They just like to talk BS.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994