@BlackSize23-ITA wrote:
@zbran1
very simple: you and many others just need to know that a game sells well on the day of its release to conceive it as a success ...
Now putting the example of cyberpunk 2077 I am trying to show you how a game INDEPENDENTLY from how it is made on a technical level and whether it is bug free or not sells a bang on the day of its release (and even earlier thanks to pre-orders). ..
This because? Because it is a good game or because today the important thing is to have everything immediately and so you just have to do a memorable marketing campaign that then EVERYONE will go and buy you the game regardless of whether it will be completely broken with Cyberpunk 2077 or "incomplete" (but I could use other terms) like Battlefield 2042 compared to previous Battlefields?
But they'll fix it later, you can tell me, like No Man Sky!
Of course! But it may very well end up like BF5 ... Are you aware of this right?
2042 has sold well over it's first week according to the numbers. I'm sure those numbers will continue to look healthy going forward.
Marketing? Virtually every product, good or bad has Marketing. Battfield is no different. We has a Beta that was a mess, but because I don't buy into group think or listen to know nothing idiots on YouTube I could see that under it all the core of the game was very much Battfield.
Are you seriously suggesting that previous titles launched "with everything there ready to go"? Really?
I hate to break it to you but Battfield 5 turned out to be an unbelievably good game, I was fuming when they pulled the plug after Pacific was released.
I understand why they did it as the numbers didn't add up, but to say it was a bad game makes me think you've never played it or didn't put enough time into it.
I walked away from Battfield 4 and in hindsight I regret that now, but life got in the way, family and kids first, all that good stuff.
@SirBobdk wrote:
@zbran1
I hate to break it to you but Battfield 5 turned out to be an unbelievably good game, I was fuming when they pulled the plug after Pacific was released.
I understand why they did it as the numbers didn't add up, but to say it was a bad game makes me think you've never played it or didn't put enough time into it.
——————————————————————————————————
Made me look at my BFV stats. I stopped playing BFV 17 months ago, but still managed to play 1500 hours. It was not a bad game, but it still ranks at the bottom of my BF list mainly due to very poor air play and bad vanilla map design. I would have stopped before if it had not been for the Pacific which was quite good.
Wow that's a lot of hours, I put 400 hundred in but 8m just a filthy casual. Yeah it wasn't a bad game in the end. The vehicles didn't bother me too much as I don't fly and ground vehicles get boring after a while. I would love to have seen a propper go at a North African campaign though and Stalingrad too.
