GameZone's Lance Liebl: "Metacritic is the worst. I really do hate it. I hate review scores to begin with, but I have to live with the fact that people want a quick, easy way of seeing how a game is without reading. I get the need for scores. But I still hate them. What I even hate more is when a game like Destiny, which takes more than 10 hours to review, has over half of its user reviews rated '0' after 10 hours. A zero. Zero. That makes Destiny the worst game of all-time."
Destiny has made over $160 million in MTX revenue, and these numbers only account the data from late 2017 to early 2019.
That's extremely low for microtransactions, especially for a game that's essentially designed around it
This was back when the game wasn't free to play.
The figures are from November 2017 to February 2019 (1 year and 4 months).
Based on that projection, the MTX revenue for Destiny 2 likely would have been closer to ~$240m for 2 years.
Not sure if premium expansions are included in that figure either although ... I'd hope that they are though and that most of the revenue was for actual content like Forsaken.
People spend way too much money on cosmetics.
Seasons($10 and just got bumped to $12) and dungeon keys($10 each, two a year) are through the eververse(micro transaction) store.
So for those two years, in order to play a season, you would pay through micro transactions.
Bungie Marathon will be worse since it's designed around it as well
It makes me sad to agree... but at the same time I am looking forward to giving it a go. Destiny 2 is so far in, I find it difficult to figure out what I am meant to do first.
Let's compare something similar. Apex Legends and its ridiculous $18/$40 skins make EA a billion each year.
For as much as ppl complain how much they hate microtransactions, they sure don’t act like it. No wonder they aren’t going anywhere.
By "people" you're referring to millions and millions of people. Obviously the ones complaining aren't necessarily the same as the ones spending all that money.
Replies(1)
In Episode 1 of Spot On, a new weekly news show, Gamespot talks about the dangers of chasing a trend.
Playing Destiny 1 on PC has been something fans have been requesting for years. It looks like Destiny 1 is now playable on PC via the RPCS3 emulator.
We see this for every AAA game release. That's why I don't go to Metacritic.
Just haters... let them be. Some will be fanboys who are being hypocryt about bungie and sony. But not speaking of MS and imsomniac. And the rest are pure haters. People who don't like a game don't troll like that about a new IP.
Hating and Hating, but always first in line...
What I don't think it's acceptable, a lot of users jump on these user review sites and give the game absurdly low scores for trivial or silly issues. Seriously, read some of them and you just might laugh. Like it isn't uncommon for people to down vote items because the shipping / service was bad, some trivial thing came into play (my box was cracked and Amazon only offered to replace it), etc. This leads to some people saying they don't read user reviews, but much like "professional" reviews, it's based off who you trust, not who they're.
In either case, Metacritic is fine, but people need to stop using it like it's some sort of scientific source that triumphs all argument / logic. Like just because I didn't like GTA IV (I didn't play it, but overall reaction seems that many believe the MC score was too high), doesn't mean I am going to change my mind because someone replies with "but it has a 90+ on Metacritic!" If anything, Metacritic needs to be more transparent and perhaps push for a universal standard before I start saying anyone should care about their scores. You figure, they claim that higher profile sites have more pull than low profile sites, but just because you write for IGN doesn't mean you're doing better reviews than some person off N4G, just means you have an in / connections, probably good English skills and a desire to work in the industry. Likewise, Metacritic takes reviews for what they're scored, but if people use different standards (Qt3 considers 3 average, many consider 5/10 average, PSLS considers 6 average* and plenty of other sites go as high as 7), different amounts and a lot of scores are translated based off what the Metacritic person thinks after reading the review or their policies (I believe a letter system is a straight 5 point scale with F being 2 and A being 10 and MC scores reviews that aren't scored in the first place) is basically a scientific looking way to obtain unscientific data.
* If you wonder why I believe it's because they use to be a 5 point system where 3 was average, but they changed to a 10 point system. To keep the old scores accurate, they basically just doubled everything and thus 6 became average.
I don't read the scores, but the actual reviews.
If you filter the bullshit out, you get a good overall picture of a product imo.
indeed, some people don't deserve to have an opinion shared publicly