Global lifetime sales: Uncharted 4 PS4 vs Halo 5 Xbox1

[DonFerrari]

Wright said:

DonFerrari said:

Ok, I believe in that, but the quote you pulled was saying it could not that it was certaing. But no point discussing it over.

That was the whole OP first post in that thread. Blame Noble for being lazy when writing!

That would be the noblest thing to do.

method114 said:

Turkish said:

What does that mean, "normal Uncharted game"?

UC4 just looks like an amazing game and people are interested in it. Fact is no one wants the same games every 2 years like Halo(sales decline with every installment) but Uncharted had a 5 year hiatus and it came back improving on its formula and still looking fresh.  People would have UC fatigue too had they made UC4 right after 3, but Sony allowed ND to work on a new IP with TLOU, it brought new ideas to the table and UC4 became a better game for it.

MS could've had the same with Bungie but they blew it. MS should've given them the opportunity to make new IPs and when the time was right, bring back Halo.

Now Halo is a milk cow by a studio that isn't even Bungie, and Halo regressed to an annual franchise now. It's all about MS unable to nurture its studios and IP portfolio, really sad.

By normal Uncharted game I mean just another game in the series not something as big as the final Uncharted game by ND. I'm not saying it doesn't have anything else going for it I just think that's a big part of the reason for what I believe will be huge sales. 

I agree about MS I have no idea why people like MS insist on pressuring creative people like devs to do what they want. That is not how you get the best out of creative people who makes games and TV shows and things like that. One of the reasons Netflix is producing some of the best shows on TV right now is because the are one of the few companies willing to give people complete creative freedom to do what they want. Nothing is worse then having someone with no creative talent telling people with talent how to do their job and what changes need to be made. 

Agree with you on almost everything. But you can't just set them totally free and unchecked. They need direction and limitations planned by people that understand that (budgeting and project management) and feedback from consumer (marketing and whatnot), so yes they need a lot of freedom, but they also need good direction (that of course can't be obnoxious or suffocating).

DivinePaladin said:

Intrinsic said:

please that doesn't even make sense. Traditionally? in relation to what? who set these traditions. Once upon a time game development maxed out $10M. And that was considered AAA. but since HD gaming came along and the quality of assets, tools and programmers becoming so much higher, that has gone up to $50M+. 

AAA has never been a numerical value but rather a subset of games that command the highest production budgets. So I have no idea what tradition has to do with anythjng. 

you are completely right about the AA/A games tho, but even compared to the last the typcal AA game can cost upwards of 5-$10M today. 

You don't just get to make up ur own category cause the team of devs that made it is bigger or a lot more money than you feel should go into making a game goes into its production.  If the norm is that most big games average $100M today then that just means that that's the new AAA. And what was triple A last gen goes down to AA and so on. 

But what you're referring to are NOT most big games. You're referring to a sect of games even bigger than previous standards allowed. If you want to put something like Persona in the same league as GTA, by all means do, but don't come to me and act like I'M the one not making sense by denoting these super-blockbusters differently because they're an entirely different beast. 

If you want to make the highest tier AAA, then drop down most of your AAA games to AA so that they fit correctly. Don't just make AAA stand for a range of $180m in the budget. 

The dev may say they are doing AAA or you may agree with it. It won't make it go there. Final Fantasy and Zelda are on the very few AAA JRPG (that aren't even totally JRPG nowadays) on the market, most would hover between A (that needs couple 100k or even less to profit) or AA (would say is perhaps Persona case).

You are the one pushing personal ranges not the other side.

BraLoD said:

DonFerrari said:

So you are just creating categories to please your own standards? Ok, no point in discussing that now. It would be ridiculous to have AAAA as AAA, AAA as what was before B and A/AA for Indie.

Ok, I believe in that, but the quote you pulled was saying it could not that it was certaing. But no point discussing it over.

Your thoughs on AAA and AA I totally agree. But nowadays for me B and C are basically good Indie and Poor Indie... with A being very good Indie or PSN titels of stablished devs. And I agree the guy is crazy.

I would suck you hard... but please tell me why LoD is so fantastic, I may try it someday.

'cause gameplay, 'cause story, 'cause soundtrack, 'cause dragoons, 'cause Rose, 'cause Lavitz, 'cause Shana...

Well... that didn't make me very interested, sorry dragons are good, but just the word don't make me crazy)