sales2099 said:
DonFerrari said:
sales2099 said:
So like you said. There's no comparison. You just had it backwards. |
Just sounds like you are conditioned to lean towards single player only games...largely because I believe that’s all you are used to.
You really underestimate what it takes to make a good multiplayer that stands the test of time. Maps, map design, weapon drops, balancing, preventing cheap tactics from being abused and promoting a sense of a fair yet challenging experience. Anything goes wrong and the community collapses. The idea is that it creates a successful continuous gameplay loop that can exist long after the campaign is done. You got to give props to games that are still being played today compared to other games that are now collecting dust and whose sole purpose is to be bragged about online. I think Gears 5 is a fantastic campaign. So much detail, coop, and all the bells and whistles of a AAA game. And it has a full scale multiplayer suite. With many updates over the last year. All free. You can downplay the effort it takes to make everything but point stands that it’s extra effort that should entitle them to compensation. Again it’s optional, cosmetic, and not pay to win. It’s done right. |
Sure sales, because since Sony is not making MP games (let's pretend here, because we know that isn't true) then only MS is doing them? He couldn't be playing MP games from 3rd parties if he liked those right? |
Do I mean all their games? Of course not. Just going by the best of the best list warz I tend to see. Bloodborne, Infamous SS, uncharted 4, God of War, Horizon ZD, Spiderman, LOU 2 (which its announcement that the MP would be delayed was met with a collective “meh”), and GoT which has some kind of coop MP that didn’t make the launch. Let’s drop the act and actually acknowledge the actual difference between Xbox and PS first party games regarding MP. Point being, you simply can’t compare a single player only game with a single player/MP game, especially one with persistent content updates. OP argues it takes less manpower to make updates, and while true, the amount of work the team does post launch entitles compensation. The idea is to do it right. Gears 5, Sea of Thieves... all cosmetic, optional, non pay to win. NM Game Pass largely nullifies the upfront costs day 1. |
If we make the cut to include every Sony game that sold better than the average Xbox exclusive then well it would accept all those "minor" titles, right? |
Your suggestion has to take into account the vast marketshare disparity, which ultimately has odds stacked against Xbox considerably. Also that Xbox measures “players” and not sold due to Game Pass. Too many variables to do what you offer. Do what you like, I’m just listing near universal top tier games. Best of the best, and a clear pattern emerges. Can’t argue that. Doesn’t really address my core message though. |
You are on VGC time enough to know that the difference on the number of consoles sold don't directly translate to number of SW sold. If you want simple examples look at Mario Kart on WiiU and multiply the HW base to the same size of Wii or Switch userbase and you'll see it wouldn't sell that much, or you can look at BotW that had over 100% attach ratio for several months on Switch, but did that sustain over time? Nope. But sure if you want to blame all on userbase aren't Xbox games also on PC so they should have even more than PS4 userbase right? Or if you want to consider just console, where is the Xbox titles that are doing 10M on Xbox to compare to the 20M on PS4?
You do know why MS hides consoles sold and SW sold and only talk about MAU and number of players that tried a game on GP, don't you?
GTS is still among the best PS titles and have MP. UC4 have it (and is near 20M sold). GoT have it. So you are just wrong on multiple levels.
