By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Mr Puggsly said:
goopy20 said:

I wouldn't necessarily call Gears 5 a failure. But if Uncharted 5 came out and scored a 82 on Metacritic, while selling 20 times less than part 3, I'm sure Sony wouldn't consider it a success either. And no I'm not making that up...

As analyst Daniel Ahmad notes, Gears of War 4 sold 4.5 times better in its launch week, and Gears of War 3 – at the height of the Xbox 360’s success sold 20 times better.

Truth is that MS has historically failed in running their first party franchises and studios. I mean why do you think Bungie left them or why 95% of the original staff of Rare left the company? MS simply doesn't give their developers the creative freedom to persue new franchises. That's why MS is never going to beat Sony with their exclusives. Therefore, it would make sense for MS to release a more powerful console next gen as that would at least be a proper reason to pick the next Xbox over the ps5. I've never seen any numbers on how the Xbox one X sold compared to the ps4 pro, but I'm guessing the X outsold the pro. If the same thing will happen with a mass market "regular" console is the question, of course. Especially if they plan to sell it for $599 or more, but I get MS's logic behind it. 

You suggested Gears 3 sold 20 times better than Gears 4. But now you're saying at launch Gears 3 at sold 20 times better. In semi educated opinion, that all sounds like bullshit.

According to this site, which only has physical numbers. Gears 3 sold 6.22 million, while Gears 4 sold 3.38 million. When it comes to actual digital sales its very likely Gears 4 has an edge there given digital sales became more common on X1. So this Gears 3 selling 20 times more argument just sounds like bullshit. Also, Phil claimed Gears 5 sold better than Gears 4 which sounds strange, maybe he just meant launch numbers, but that's what he claimed.

Again, Bungie left to make a Halo clone with RPG elements. Meanwhile Rare had to evolve because the games that made them successful don't do well on Xbox. Some of Rare's greatest success has actually been with MS.

Sony's games haven't been that creative to be fair. Sony for the most part has just been interested in 3rd person story driven experiences. They're having more success now, but that doesn't mean they're being creative or diverse with genres or gameplay.

What I actually like about MS is their games actually do feel a little more diverse. Due to their content being more gameplay focused versus story driven, I spend more time with MS games. But to each their own. Also, MS has more studios now so I think you will see more unique projects coming from them. That includes the story driven experiences Sony fans seem to enjoy.

Currently I believe MS is gonna have the low end and high end console for the 9th gen. They're hyping a powerful console, but the masses want something more affordable that plays the same content.

The greatest success of RARE was on Nintendo NES, SNES and N64.



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

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."