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

Forums - Sony - Sony is losing playstation console exclusives left and right this 2018.

X1Gates said:
kurasakiichimaruALT said:

I don't want to make the list but it's been a phenomenon that started last year and is going on hard-mode this year.

My question is...

Why?

Should sony do something about it?

Can they do something about it?

What would be effect of this next gen?

 

For the ones asking what are those "console exclusives gone rogue".
Nier
Hellblade
Crash
Edith Finch
No Man's Sky
Firewatch

 

thanks zombie9ers for the help. 😉

The xbox one x turned it around and made devs want to make the best version of their game. 

Better than PC?  News to me!



Around the Network
X1Gates said:
kurasakiichimaruALT said:

I don't want to make the list but it's been a phenomenon that started last year and is going on hard-mode this year.

My question is...

Why?

Should sony do something about it?

Can they do something about it?

What would be effect of this next gen?

 

For the ones asking what are those "console exclusives gone rogue".
Nier
Hellblade
Crash
Edith Finch
No Man's Sky
Firewatch

 

thanks zombie9ers for the help. 😉

The xbox one x turned it around and made devs want to make the best version of their game. 

And they will break sales record making X1 the most sold console in history.



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."

DonFerrari said:

1 - VGC counts all sales done with bundles, be them physical or digital. His point is that Sony actually charges you for the game while MS don't, so your try to make PS sales on SW padded because of bundling actually is more against Xbox, but you'll never accept that.

Last time i checked, anything digital does not get counted as a software sale and to top it off we dont even know how many Xbox consoles get sold since MS dont announce official numbers. If someone wants to correct me on that than great. 

Either way you cannot downplay the X1X, its got good marketing, weather its sold more than Pro has nothing to do with the success of the platform. X outsold Pro at launch and it was handicapped due to the X1s reputation while Pro will sell basically because of the PS4 being successful this gen. Ill be picking up a Pro soon and it has nothing to do with Sonys marketing, in fact Sonys marketing on the Pro was pathetic.



Azzanation said:
DonFerrari said:

1 - VGC counts all sales done with bundles, be them physical or digital. His point is that Sony actually charges you for the game while MS don't, so your try to make PS sales on SW padded because of bundling actually is more against Xbox, but you'll never accept that.

Last time i checked, anything digital does not get counted as a software sale and to top it off we dont even know how many Xbox consoles get sold since MS dont announce official numbers. If someone wants to correct me on that than great. 

Either way you cannot downplay the X1X, its got good marketing, weather its sold more than Pro has nothing to do with the success of the platform. X outsold Pro at launch and it was handicapped due to the X1s reputation while Pro will sell basically because of the PS4 being successful this gen. Ill be picking up a Pro soon and it has nothing to do with Sonys marketing, in fact Sonys marketing on the Pro was pathetic.

It's been said by Machinima, trunkswd and others taking care of the numbers in VGC that when a digital code is sold with the console it is counted on the SW part of VGC. And so if you want to play the MS doesn't announce sales of their HW can we say it sold less than 20M?

You claimed it sold better and took a shoot at PS4Pro. So don't try to turn your way around it making it another thing. And I love how X1X sells because of its merits but PS4Pro seems to have sold even being bad just because people will buy any PS4 available... that certainly explains the shortages.



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."

potato_hamster said:
contestgamer said:

I wont play anything under 85, it's not worth my time. There's still plenty of hours a year to spend on games over 85, especially on games like rocket league etc which provide endless entertainment. And yes, majority of games are bad, most are under 85 and arent going to provide enjoyment at that quality.

Rocket League is literally sitting at an 85 metacritc. You do realize that if one or two reviewers decided that game wasn't as good as they thought it was, and say, gave it a 70 instead of a 90, then you never would have played it. If Rocket League was rated 84 or 83, would that have made that game any less enjoyable to you? Nope, not bit, but because you have such silly standards, you would have missed out on all of the enjoyment you got out of that game.

That's why your post is ignorant.

RL with that score would have been a different and worse game, so no, I probably wouldnt have enjoyed it. Make steering worse, controls clunky, physics a little bit wonky and its not fun. And it's actually 86 on PC where I play it mostly.



Around the Network
Mandalore76 said:
contestgamer said:

85 is the cutoff for what constitutes a good game. And yeah, that number sounds about right. 126 games is a LOT of hours of good gameplay anyway. Not sure how many you need to have fun?

There is such thing as personal taste.  I feel bad for anyone who's "personal taste" is pre-determined by what other people collectively tell them what is or isn't worth their time.  I've played plenty of games below 85 meta that were fun/enjoyable for me that I would have missed out on otherwise.  Like Octopath Traveler on Nintendo Switch (83 meta).  Meanwhile, "The Last Jedi" Star Wars film has an 85 "MUST SEE" rating on Metacritic.  Yet, there's 3 hours of my life I wish I had back.

Movies work on a totally different scale on MC - MC isn't a good source for evaluating those. I dont watch movies with an imdb rating under 7 and will only see a movie in the theater if its 7.7 or more and interests me, or if its 8.5+ regardless of interest.



potato_hamster said:
Errorist76 said:

This must be the most ignorant comment I’ve read all week. Congratulations. I’ll just assume you were trying to troll.

Hey look, we actually agree on something :)

Haha funny I though the same thing when I read your comment :)



contestgamer said:
potato_hamster said:

This is one of the most ignorant posts I've ever seen posted on it. If anything below 85 on Metacritic is "pretty bad" that makes the vast majority of games (like over 95% ) pretty bad, and you must play very, very few games in the run of a year.

I wont play anything under 85, it's not worth my time. There's still plenty of hours a year to spend on games over 85, especially on games like rocket league etc which provide endless entertainment. And yes, majority of games are bad, most are under 85 and arent going to provide enjoyment at that quality.

Some of the best games I ever played have a MC score in the 70ies. Some of the best movies ever have a 7.something at IMDB. If you willfully chose to be ignorant, so be it.



Errorist76 said:
contestgamer said:

I wont play anything under 85, it's not worth my time. There's still plenty of hours a year to spend on games over 85, especially on games like rocket league etc which provide endless entertainment. And yes, majority of games are bad, most are under 85 and arent going to provide enjoyment at that quality.

Some of the best games I ever played have a MC score in the 70ies. Some of the best movies ever have a 7.something at IMDB. If you willfully chose to be ignorant, so be it.

IMDB 7's are equivalent to high 80's on MC if you compare the highest rated MC movies to the highest rated IMDB movies of all time. So no problem with you watching 7 movies as my cutoff for movies is 7 as well, like it is for you. However games I'm skeptical of. What games in the 70s MC did you enjoy?



contestgamer said:
Errorist76 said:

Some of the best games I ever played have a MC score in the 70ies. Some of the best movies ever have a 7.something at IMDB. If you willfully chose to be ignorant, so be it.

IMDB 7's are equivalent to high 80's on MC if you compare the highest rated MC movies to the highest rated IMDB movies of all time. So no problem with you watching 7 movies as my cutoff for movies is 7 as well, like it is for you. However games I'm skeptical of. What games in the 70s MC did you enjoy?

Recently: Detroit become human and Vampyr for example.

The Saboteur is another one I remember.

 

One of my favourite movies ever “The Fall” by Tarsem Singh has a 64 on MC and 7.9 on IMDB proving your theory wrong. The main factor is personal taste which isn’t compatible with a metascore. Dare to have your own opinion.

Last edited by Errorist76 - on 23 August 2018