doubt we would. Uncharted 4's DLC was shown at PSX. Bloodbornes at TGS. but then again, Infamous first light was announced at E3. 

id love to get to see the new DLC at E3, but id rather they take their time and give us something worthwhile. 

Using attach rate as sign of popularity on a console that just launched with one big game. By the logic of attach rate no Zelda is ever going to be as popular as windwaker was.

Horizon's commercial success is important for more reasons than just petty fan arguments about which console is best. It is very rare for female-centric video games to obtain commercial success, and less common still for ones that treat their female protagonists with actual respect to sell in the millions. The result of Horizon's success as a new IP will likely be the realization on the part of many other developers that there's a real market for games about women and the according creation of more as a result.

(Sony does have some bragging rights in that connection at this particular moment though.)

I think you're putting too much weight in Horizon's success. There's never been much doubt that a female focused AAA title can be successful, just if they'd be as successful as if the same title had a male protagonist instead. Horizon obviously can't answer that question.

Horizon might help strengthen confidence in the idea, but for the most part i'd credit the gradual shift as being down to publishers slowly realising that male gamers (who currently still make up the majority of the AAA market) really just don't care. In-fact if you give them a well written female character, such as Ellie in TLOU, they'll actively be calling for them to be the protagonist in the sequel (and we now know she will be).

Personally, i think the biggest hurdle for female protagonists is the media. They're quick to reinforce the image of male gamers as monsters who hate woman, and they're intolerant of female characters that don't fit specific moulds (a mould even Aloy quite firmly fits into it). The former reinforces the idea that male protagonists are a necessity, and the latter ensures any character outside of the approved moulds will be defaulted to male.

This is all just my opinion though. This is ultimately a purely speculation based topic right now :p 

I'm not going to discuss this with someone who can't do so without using a condecending overtone.

Well here's an example of what I mean: A decade ago, 11% of American films that were released in a given year had female leads. Today it's 28%. What explains the difference? The Hunger Games. There are many ways of illustrating that fact, but here's one that's directly pertinent to the current year: consider the case of the upcoming Wonder Woman movie, which is expected to be a hit. There had been many petitions for such a movie, but it was not until 2013 that Warner Bros. greenlit the project, concluding that there was now a market for it. What was their proof? The commercial success of The Hunger Games the previous year. In other words, there would be no Wonder Woman movie coming out this year if not for The Hunger Games.

I view the laws of capitalism as similar across the board. A female-centric video game that's a hit in an analogous way can pave the way for more to be made because money talks louder than anything else in the world of business. Nothing else is equally impactful. I mean do you really think that the average person is more familiar with the name Anita Sarkeesian or the name Lara Croft? A hit carries more weight than any critic. (And we could argue that games like Horizon and TLOU II might very well not exist or be in development (as applicable), in their current forms anyway, if not for those much-maligned feminist critics, it's worth adding.) The real problem, in my view, is a shortage of hits that revolve around female narratives. This medium needs its Hunger Games, especially in view of losing the iconic Samus Aran recently. Horizon could be it. That's all I'm saying.

I didn't say it wouldn't have an effect, i just disagree with the amount of weight you're putting on Horizon itself. If Horizon was a multi-platform title that managed to push 15 - 20 million copies, then i'd agree its effect would be substantial. You're right that gaming hasn't yet had a female focused AAA title achieve truly huge success (off the top of my head, i think FF13 has the record at 8m+), and one is likley needed to really kick start a larger push, but i don't see Horizon being it.

It could be argued it'll effect Sony themselves, but they've already had several such titles in development for a while now. They seem less concerned about if a game has a male or female lead, so much as just letting their developers tell their stories. I think that's the best way to do it.

As a side note (because i'm not sure if you misunderstood me, or i'm misunderstanding you), when i say the "media" i'm not talking about people like Anita Sarkeesian, but the media as a collective. Publishers absolutely do care what the media says, many even use review scores as the basis for their developers getting bonuses. To have more female titles, we need publishers to know it won't effect their bottom line. To increase the chances of that happening, we need them making more of those titles. To make them do that, they need to see it as less of a risk. I think the media is slowing that process.

I don't think he was trying to be condecending...but I'll try a different example.

If one game sells 5 million copies on a userbase of 25 million, and another game sells 15 million copies on a userbase of 100 million is the first game really more successful?

I think it's an interesting discussion, but I firmly believe that the market for a game has a limit that is only tenuously connected to userbase. I mean, even just looking at the makeup and age of a userbase you can see that some games are going to have a higher attachment rate than others. A smaller, more focused userbase is going to have games with higher attachment rates.

PS4 sold well at launch because it had an incredible nuymber of multiplatform games. Switch did not have a Call of Duty, FIFA, Assassin's Creed and Battlefield at launch and the PS4 had the best console version of those games. Switch had just one game worth playing at launch which makes its sales more impressive and even that being a cross generation game did not effect sales of Switch.

This would give them more incentive to do so because then that would lead to a very high quality exclusive game at launch which a console usually doesn't get in its first year and would bolster the lineup and outlook towards the console by a huge amount which is beneficial to the sales of that console. Also their game will sell more due to being one of the few launch games and would get more attention so its good for both the console and the game. People who have a PS4 will be able to enjoy God of War, and it will also draw the attention of the media as a PS5 game and may bring in new fans who are PlayStation fans but didn't play any God of War game and bought the console and so picked God of War because it was one of the best games on the console at launch.

That way the game will also have no competition for months and would sell incredibly well and word of mouth will spread that there is this amazing game on PS5 increasing sales of the new console. No one will want to play it on PS4 who doesn't already have one and some PS4 gamers might buy it at launch on their system and then buy it again on PS5 when they get one. Also that way Sony can show that they are still supporting PS4.

That precedent has already been set and that started with Tomb Raider. I'm saying that this is another thing that publishers can do and I think Sony and Microsoft will do this.

That is quite a goal you set for these games. I'm pretty sure companies don't just care about attach rate but the actual sales of the game because that is what makes them money not the attach rate.

id buy it! if i could get on x1 hehe