User Tag List

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 48 of 48
  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Digfox View Post
    Unless I missed something they didn't talk numbers for BLOPS 4 sales, but stated it didn't do as well as expected. So they made a big thing of Single Player returning for the next COD and who knows maybe they change the model up for COD. But I do think they have an obligation to those existing customers who paid for COD and Season Pass etc. if they were to go f2p for Blackout.
    I think Activsion now have the 2 best teams working on the single player campaigns with IW and Sledgehammer and I also like how each team has 3 years to make their entry. I thought Infinite Warfare was increabile and for me the best single player COD game since COD IV.

    Also I get how Activsion are a easy target for people to knock, but they've been around since 70's, not many 3rd parties can say that

  2. #42
    Activision is very different company that existed in the 70's, 80's & 90's, before it was went into Bankruptcy (Kotick bought the naming rights and IP and let go of the nearly all the remaining employees). That said I'm not sure many of the major western publishers are popular.

    I wonder if the return to Single Player is actually due in-part to the games being on a 3-year development cycle rather than a sudden decision over the last year, i.e. they were already developing SP and simply stayed the course.

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Digfox View Post

    I wonder if the return to Single Player is actually due in-part to the games being on a 3-year development cycle rather than a sudden decision over the last year, i.e. they were already developing SP and simply stayed the course.

    It was no doubt the corp looking at the sales of PUBG and wanting some of it and given they have 3 different Teams each with 3 years to make their entry just gave the task to Treyarch, while IW and Sledge work on their single player games (which for me have always been stronger than Treyarch single player COD games)

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Superman Falls View Post
    I do enjoy the irony of Activision and EA laying underperformance issues for CoD and BF partly on single player offerings in the latest games. They shouldn't need a crystal ball to work out that cutting some content will cut some audience.
    To be fair to both of them, I know this seems like an obvious answer, but they have detailed measurements of what players actually play in these games. All the publishers do.

    The issue, sometimes, is "interpretation", which can be a bit of the "crystal ball" you mention. Like it's easy to see that single-player gameplay accounts for 0.00001% of your audience's total play-time, but it's harder to see how that compares to sales.

    One of the problems a lot of these developers are facing is how to effectively "monetise" single-player content. Like in theory, for Battlefield or CoD, you could craft single-player missions and sell them episodically; unfortunately the economics of that don't add up. You need a whole team of people for a duration, with voice-acting, music, level design... It takes too long and too few people buy them.

    The supreme example that I've seen discussed, for this - the proverbial pandora's box - wasn't actually "horse armour", but rather that time World of Warcraft added a paid unicorn mount model and sold a million of them, at 8$ apiece. That took two artists a couple of days. Eight million dollars and it's 99.9% profit.

    So you end up with this weird dichotomy, where people won't buy a chapter for a story-based game for £20 because they (reasonably) say "but the whole game was £40? Shouldn't this be half as much content again?" but they will buy a weapon skin for £5, even though the economics of that make much less sense. But the weapon skin looks like the De L'Orean for Back to the Future and says "Great Scott!" when you shoot someone.

  5. #45
    I understood the delicious irony @Superman Falls referred to, was that whilst EA blames including single player for lack of sales, Activision is trumpeting the return of single player campaign. All while both multiplayer FPSs underperform.

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Digfox View Post
    I understood the delicious irony @Superman Falls referred to, was that whilst EA blames including single player for lack of sales, Activision is trumpeting the return of single player campaign. All while both multiplayer FPSs underperform.
    Yeah; I didn't explain it well but this is kinda what I mean about interpreting their data. In a shooter, players might just rinse the campaign once over 12 hours, then play 1000 hours of the multiplayer. They might even buy content for the multiplayer (and none for the single player). The obvious (but evidently-wrong) conclusion there is to axe the single player and focus on multiplayer, but that doesn't consider that a fair few players will simply not buy the game if it doesn't at least have some single-player content.

  7. #47
    Yep. I reckon that would be very true about GTAV. They’re making an absolute killing on the online money but I think that not only did it sell on the single player but, even now after GTA online, I still think a new one would have to sell on the single player too.

  8. #48
    I'd be a spot on example for that. If they released Grand Theft Auto Online 2 this year with no SP content, I wouldn't buy it at all.

    They released GTA5 and I've bought that three times, I've played GTA Online on all three versions I've owned but the total time I've played is probably no more than 3-4hrs because it's utter dog**** yet because I made a new character each time Rockstars stats probably think there's three more users GTAOnline can add to its immense stats even though its inclusion didn't affect the sale of the game to me at all.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •