By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Sea of Thieves is Microsoft's fastest selling first party new IP of this generation.

Libara on 29 March 2018
JRPGfan said:
KiigelHeart said:

When and where did they claim that? 

I remember someone data mined the beta? or alpha, and they replied to it saying something like
"dont worry, its just a beta, its only 20% of the game".
I tried googleing for it, but cant find anything... .am I the only one that remembers this?

Closest thing I could find was this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Seaofthieves/comments/7uoz01/they_said_the_beta_was_only_20_of_the_game_right/

^ that person remembered it too.

*edit:  Might not have been MS or Rare that said the 20% number thingy.

So no actual evidence just "he said", got it.



Around the Network
thismeintiel on 29 March 2018

 

LudicrousSpeed said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

 

 

Let's take a look at thismeintiel's post that's being critiqued here. 

> "Rare's most ambitious game" isn't a huge promise?" Defining that huge promises were made. 

> "Instead people are getting bored after a couple hours." Says that people are getting bored of it. Not him. So ... good, so far not lying. How can we know whether or not people are getting bored after a couple of hours? Testimonials. What platform are we using, right this very minute, that can easily be used a testimonial regarding the game's quality? The internet. 

> "And seeing everything the game has to offer in under 4 hours." A continuation of the premise set up by the previous sentence. Obviously influenced by other peoples opinions of the game.

You guys act like he was making broad sweeping claims about the game that were so ridiculous only a player could form an opinion on them. Instead he pretty much just said what every reviewer has echoed, what every player has echoed, what every streamer has echoed. A lack of content. You can argue with him if you want to, but it seems highly suspect to make fun of someone and say they were given "ownage" because they are giving a general statement on a game that almost everyone who's played it agrees with. It really seems like you are only calling him out in this specific instance because this is a game you like, this standard is surely not something two-three users are going to apply consistently to themselves. 

You could say he's being a bit too snarky and I'd probably agree, but that is totally up to perception since this conversation is text based. Personally I think there's a difference though between your perceived quality of a game before playing it, and the quality you feel the game maintains after playing it, and it's totally fine for him to have a perceived notion of how good a game will probably be ... because we all have these notions in our head before we play a game. People only call them out as ridiculous as soon as they're negative. 

That and the posts that followed are a lot of texts to defend someone who was going to be negative about the game and any positive news about it no matter what.

No, you don't really need to play a game to know if you will like it or to have a general understanding of whether it's good or not. But parroting selective criticism as factual just reveals an agenda, so it makes sense for someone to call that person out. Anyone who has played the game knows you can't see everything it has to offer within four hours, yet he stated it factually. Just something anyone who has played the game would know.

People only call them out as ridiculous when they are ridiculous.

Someone who was going to be negative, no matter what? You obviously have me confused with someone else. 

Selective criticism? Seems to be the general consensus to me. 

You may want to look at the definition for ridiculous, again. 

 

DirtyP2002 said: 
thismeintiel said: 

Bwahaha, nice try. I'm sure you'll stick to that precedent you set for yourself and never speak an opinion about a game you haven't played. I won't hold my breath. 

Why nice try?

He called you out and you confirmed he was right.

 

That was not a try, that was ownage.
Azzanation said: 
thismeintiel said: 

Bwahaha, nice try. I'm sure you'll stick to that precedent you set for yourself and never speak an opinion about a game you haven't played. I won't hold my breath. 

How do you give an opinion on something you havnt played? Please explain.

Would you take a reviewer seriously if they came out and scored/reviewed a game that they havnt played?
Azzanation said: 
AngryLittleAlchemist said: 

It doesn't make sense.

"How do you give an opinion on something you havnt played? Please explain."

>He reads reviews

"But would you trust a review from someone who hasn't played the game"

>No?

"So you can't give an opinion on the game cause you haven't played it yet, mr. No Name Hero"

>But I read a review 

Hmmm ... 

Reviews are guidelnes nothing more. If you want to shout claims from someone else's opinion does not make it your opinion. 

I play the games before i throw cristism. Some times you will find hidden gems.

I would not take a reviewer serious if he/she hasnt played the game just like i wouldnt take a randoms opinion on a game they havnt played. Its a pretty simple concept.

Welcome to the world of the internet. It's a pretty awesome tool. You look up products before you buy them, and can also look up reviews for said products. 

Look, I know you guys wanted this to be a great game, since it's Rare's/MS's biggest exclusive so far this year, but it just isn't. The general consensus is that it looks pretty, has potential, but lacks so much content. It really is MS's NMS. Granted, NMS had a little more content at launch. It also has the excuse that it was made by a very small indie team, not a big 1st party studio, so we really should expect more from SoT.

It's also ridiculous and hypocritical of you to hold me to some standard that you know damn well you do not follow yourself. I could probably go back through each of your post histories and within 5-10 mins find you talking about a game, positively or negatively, that you have never played. So, knock off the hypocrisy just to defend the game. 

Last edited by thismeintiel - on 29 March 2018

 

KiigelHeart on 29 March 2018
thismeintiel said: 

Welcome to the world of the internet. It's a pretty awesome tool. You look up products before you buy them, and can also look up reviews for said products. 

Look, I know you guys wanted this to be a great game, since it's Rare's/MS's biggest exclusive so far this year, but it just isn't. The general consensus is that it looks pretty, has potential, but lacks so much content. It really is MS's NMS. Granted, NMS had a little more content at launch. It also has the excuse that it was made by a very small indie team, not a big 1st party studio, so we really should expect more from SoT.

It's also ridiculous and hypocritical of you to hold me to some standard that you know damn well you do not follow yourself. I could probably go back through each of your post histories and within 5-10 mins find you talking about a game, positively or negatively, that you have never played. So, knock off the hypocrisy just to defend the game. 

It really isn't. Unless from now on we compare every game that doesn't meet all expectations to NMS. SoT is a social experience, even when playing solo you'll most likely have to deal with other players. NMS, by my understanding, is exactly the opposite; you're alone in an endless universe. NMS being made by a very small indie team is not an excuse for lies or false marketing. SoT under delivered in content but at least it had alphas and betas, people had an idea what the game was going to be. 

General consensus indeed is that it looks pretty, has potential but also lacks much content (for a full-priced game). Even many reviewers say it is a foundation for a great game. Many people who played it have a great time but also criticize the lack of content, because they love the game and want it to become excellent.

Then there are people who never played it, never wanted to play it, never wanted it to succeed so they pick all the negative stuff from reviews and form their opinion. For example, I don't think it's likely you'll experience everything the game has to offer in 5 hours but just because some reviewers stated this some take it as a fact. 



thismeintiel on 29 March 2018
KiigelHeart said:
thismeintiel said: 

Welcome to the world of the internet. It's a pretty awesome tool. You look up products before you buy them, and can also look up reviews for said products. 

Look, I know you guys wanted this to be a great game, since it's Rare's/MS's biggest exclusive so far this year, but it just isn't. The general consensus is that it looks pretty, has potential, but lacks so much content. It really is MS's NMS. Granted, NMS had a little more content at launch. It also has the excuse that it was made by a very small indie team, not a big 1st party studio, so we really should expect more from SoT.

It's also ridiculous and hypocritical of you to hold me to some standard that you know damn well you do not follow yourself. I could probably go back through each of your post histories and within 5-10 mins find you talking about a game, positively or negatively, that you have never played. So, knock off the hypocrisy just to defend the game. 

It really isn't. Unless from now on we compare every game that doesn't meet all expectations to NMS. SoT is a social experience, even when playing solo you'll most likely have to deal with other players. NMS, by my understanding, is exactly the opposite; you're alone in an endless universe. NMS being made by a very small indie team is not an excuse for lies or false marketing. SoT under delivered in content but at least it had alphas and betas, people had an idea what the game was going to be. 

General consensus indeed is that it looks pretty, has potential but also lacks much content (for a full-priced game). Even many reviewers say it is a foundation for a great game. Many people who played it have a great time but also criticize the lack of content, because they love the game and want it to become excellent.

Then there are people who never played it, never wanted to play it, never wanted it to succeed so they pick all the negative stuff from reviews and form their opinion. For example, I don't think it's likely you'll experience everything the game has to offer in 5 hours but just because some reviewers stated this some take it as a fact. 

Hmm, all that sounds familiar. Oh yes, NMS's launch.

And sorry, but it's not just one reviewer's opinion. It's basically the general consensus. 



 

Manlytears on 29 March 2018

I realy want to see npd results for this game, not only march, but the months to come. There are lots of talks about "SoT floped" and "SoT was a very successful lauch" but no real prove in neither side. Npd can't come soon enough.



Around the Network
thismeintiel on 29 March 2018
Manlytears said:
I realy want to see npd results for this game, not only march, but the months to come. There are lots of talks about "SoT floped" and "SoT was a very successful lauch" but no real prove in neither side. Npd can't come soon enough.

Well, given how the last game they gave this title to did, I'm guessing it'll fall somewhere in between. Should have an OK launch, but I don't think it will have good legs given the reviews and users' scores. 



 

CrazyGamer2017 on 29 March 2018

You'd think a game that is so flawed would not sell so well but it's like people don't care about that, well too bad for them I guess.



jason1637 on 29 March 2018
CrazyGamer2017 said:
You'd think a game that is so flawed would not sell so well but it's like people don't care about that, well too bad for them I guess.

People are enjoying the game. The game is flawed but its so much fun.



jason1637 on 29 March 2018
thismeintiel said:
Manlytears said:
I realy want to see npd results for this game, not only march, but the months to come. There are lots of talks about "SoT floped" and "SoT was a very successful lauch" but no real prove in neither side. Npd can't come soon enough.

Well, given how the last game they gave this title to did, I'm guessing it'll fall somewhere in between. Should have an OK launch, but I don't think it will have good legs given the reviews and users' scores. 

Depends. Lots of GaaS games that aremt great at launch but become good over time end up having good legs but at the same time its $10 on gamepass so i expect the playerbase to be pretty good in the long run.



CrazyGamer2017 on 29 March 2018
jason1637 said:
CrazyGamer2017 said:
You'd think a game that is so flawed would not sell so well but it's like people don't care about that, well too bad for them I guess.

People are enjoying the game. The game is flawed but its so much fun.

I don't know the game cause I don't have an Xbox so I'm not going to pretend I can tell for sure. All I can say is I saw Angry Joe's review and well, given what he says and the final note he gave to the game, I would not imagine that people can truly enjoy it. I wouldn't with that many flaws and It's not just Joe's review, other reviews go that way too.

Also if that game is successful it sends the wrong message to the studio that made the game, it tells them: don't bother adding content and making the whole thing as good as possible, you'll sell tons anyway. Well at least in my opinion it is the wrong message to send.