Alex S. from Link-Cable writes: "for EA, Ubisoft, Bethesda, Square Enix and everyone else presenting at E3 2019, here’s our final predictions for the show. Enjoy!"
One way or another, these games provoked strong reactions.
I don't think Days Gone divided fans. For the most part, gamers loved it. It was the reviewers who were divided. Self-loathing racist pieces of shit that took exception to the main character being white. This was a fantastic game, one of the best open-world games I ever played, and I've played them all.
Second you on this.. I had absolute blast playing this game!! Memorable!
TLOU 2 I thought was utter s***.. I still haven’t finished it and stopped about halfway (apparently).
It wasn’t fans divided around The Order, it was a period where xbox fanboys were thinking Rise was a more engaging game so they were spreading a lot of hate..
Today they are hibernating with nothing to play
The Order was short, no denying, but a great game with huge potential
I enjoyed days gone and last of us 2. PeoPke trippin.
I always thought the order was kinda whack seeming so I never tried it. Id like to now though.
No thr order was a short, clunky mediocre yet visually stunning game. I thoughts so and pretty much every other reviewer did too.
The Order, where length was a criterion for rating a game, but only this particular game and no others.
While I enjoy what is there in Days Gone, I mourn what was lost. The first trailers for Days Gone showed a morality system that looked interesting. For example, in the beginning when you are chasing down Leon and after you caught him, you could choose to shoot him or leave him for the freaks. You can see hints of it in other places, like if you catch a bandit unaware sometimes they will disarm and it seems like Deacon had the option to shoot them or let them go (he automatically lets them go).
Whatever...those systems unless revolutionary don't add much...they rarely do in games that do have them.
For the most part, when it comes to Last of Us 2, incels, homophobes, and closet national socialist types didn't like it. I repeat not all, but most.
Days Gone is a great game and it was attacked by the leftist socialist people that are actually closet fascists. As a great poet once said: "Socialism is the mother of fascism."
The Order got hit from anti-Sony Xbox fans.
Out of these 3, Last of Us 2 stands above as being a work of art. It's still generating a ton conversation to this day.
-"Last of Us 2, incels, homophobes, and closet national socialist types didn't like it. I repeat not all, but most."
It's so weird & cringe to see other gamers paint this broad brush of *who* didn't like Part II. Why take the "most who disagree with me are Hitler" type of mentality over game tastes?
-"The Order got hit from anti-Sony Xbox fans."
No other community I've dabbled in - be it social media or gaming forums - has built up such a dedicated defense for The Order like N4G. This attitude fundamentally blows my mind, especially in the face of similar older titles (hello Uncharted 1) that already did a marginally better job at storytelling and gameplay. It almost feels like some N4G group chat made this reflexive defense as a meme and a bunch of posters are still playing along with it. No offense to genuine Order fans, but I simply can't shake that feeling.
Well to be fair, I remember being only one of a few people on this site that actually praised The Order when it for came out and got alot of flack for it. Over time it seems opinions have changed about it.
saying something is "cringe" doesn't prove me wrong. You just throw words out and hope they stick. Bring some evidence to prove me otherwise.
I got:
Letizi, R., & Norman, C. (2023). “You Took That From Me”: Conspiracism and Online Harassment in the Alt-Fandom of The Last of Us Part II. Games and Culture, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/155...
You're up. Maybe you can change my mind.
Because NG4 defended it doesn't mean NG4 is the gospel of gaming.
Yeah Yui, it was "the game to hate" at the time. What was bizarre was the, as usual, journalists that were lying about the game and their stories were approved.
It was all clickhate all the time for the Order. I defended it too.
@Yui
-"I remember being only one of a few people on this site that actually praised The Order when it for came out and got alot of flack for it."
That could've been the case right at release, but you should see more recent opinion articles on here. There's a pretty substantial cadre who defend it on here as being "unfairly tarnished" that I simply don't see elsewhere.
Most of the backlash against The Last Of Us 2 was people upset that Joel was killed off, simple as that.
There is that too, but the other groups pilled on too, which increased the numbers. I really don't see why we have to ignore everything but Joel being killed.
I didn't like Part 2 and I'm not any of. The game sold like crazy, it's just hard for people to understand that most found the story to be arse.
Prove what I say is wrong. I will need evidence. I didn't not say all. Your exception rule doesn't work. Find evidence that counters mine. So, we can have a real discussion.
There are plenty of legitimate criticism in hours long analysis videos and reddit posts actually critiquing Part 2. The people you're talking about are such a minority, and they attack just about everything because they see the "wokeness" in the most subliminal ways. They're insignificant because the game still sold pretty well, and reviewed well regardless. Keep in mind the game released world wide, and western politics and views can't be applied to every corner of the world. I can agree that Days Gone was attacked, and unlike Part 2, due to these sites being so heavily political biased it did do some damage.
I am at least showing the group was large enough of a concern for a journal to publish an article.
Where's your evidence?
The last of us part 2 was bad story wise. Not some nonsense that you speak of...most of the negative people were random...lots of the critical reception from anything other than mainstream journalism thought that the game had huge problems.
Angry Joe and skill up being prime examples of that...unless of course like most socialists out there you wanna just lable people.
@anast
Oh geez...Twitter is full of trolls...common sense.
The YouTube critics I mentioned are innocent till proven guilty. And proven with facts not opinions. I gave you evidence of 2 prominent youtubers and yet you ask for more...either you can't read or you aren't looking for evidence.
As far as groups being "large" for journos to get their panties all tied up...well then again you must be extremely gullible. As if we haven't seen thousands of articles claiming players are offended, angry or backlashing based solely on 1 or 2 posts. They love grabbing very specific individuals and using them to represent a much larger base....whatever is convenient to them making the case that gamers bad and journos good.
-"saying something is "cringe" doesn't prove me wrong. You just throw words out and hope they stick. Bring some evidence to prove me otherwise."
It doesn't "prove" it, but I have a solid success rate with the term - which seems to be the case here too. With regards to your article, I should break this down into parts:
1.) For starters, bleating for countering "evidence" after brandishing a media analysis paper (or papers) shouldn't be treated as some kind of trump card. That's not to say these researchers did nothing, mind you. Only that expecting counter-ideologies within this field who'll make this specific kind of work for TLOU Pt. II is absurdly demanding on its face. Nevermind the probability of non-progressive types getting the administrative approval being next to nil, but that's another can of worms.
2.) While I have critiques about x or y (some anecdotes being more flimsy than others, GG speculation, etc.), let's say for this argument that it's a solid piece overall. Having read the whole thing, there is literally *NOTHING* that validates the broad brush with which you painted TLOU2 critics in your first comment (speaking as someone who thinks it's a good game). The discussion about alt-fans, anti-fans, etc. does paint an ugly picture about the TLOU subreddit, Twitter users, certain YouTubers, and more; however, there's no positive declaration about TLOU2's critics ending at these particular clusters either. Even if you say "most, not all" in your first comment, that still seems overly broad compared to the text I read. (EDIT: That's not to disregard the nastiness or modest size in its own right.)
It's also worth noting how much of that paper's material is inspecting a pre-/at-release sort of backlash. But the game's been out for several years now. More and more people who AREN'T incels, homophobes, closet Nazis have played it past 2020 and you don't really see this new broad consensus about its accomplishments; in fact, you see more of a continued split over whether or not it deserves such monumental praise. Here's just a few other sub-communities near its release that don't fit your description:
- https://www.youtube.com/wat...
- https://www.youtube.com/wat...
- https://www.youtube.com/wat...
-"Because NG4 defended it doesn't mean NG4 is the gospel of gaming."
Correct, but you're just solidifying my point. Even PS fans elsewhere (social media or gaming forums) don't go to bat for The Order with the enthusiasm and consistency they do here in my experience. That's what makes your assessment of "anti-Sony Xbox fans" so fascinating to me.
1) Speculation and emotion
2) Speculation and emotion
2a) Might be an argument if you gave me something other than your own opinion and emotions over the subject, but it's left as an anecdote without any real research. By the way, we can't negate the at release behavior, because it fits your narrative. It existed and those groups were involved.
The article is not a trump card and the fact that you seem to think so is more troubling on your end than mine. The article was to see if you could find other people that researched this phenomenon and we can have a conversation, but you still refuse to do this. Instead you wrote a sermon, which is a shame because maybe you had something with point "2a: It's also worth..." But this point still tries to side step actual events.
The final point doesn't solidify anything unless you are trying to solidify your own opinion. Albeit, it is passive aggressive, which is strange.
-"Speculation and emotion"
I mean... okay? Where am I wrong on 2.) though? Asking for a conflicting media studies research paper on this specific topic is already a random ask, given the environment with which these are made.
-"Might be an argument if you gave me something other than your own opinion and emotions over the subject, but it's left as an anecdote without any real research."
Wait. Just so we're clear: a research paper that focuses most of its attention towards a subreddit and social media comments to Neil Druckmann means you get to sustain your overly broad claims while contrary social media sources that don't exhibit the same kind of "alt-fan/anti-fan" rhetoric can't be counted? Now I feel even more confident in my initial assessment b/c all you're after is just whatever can be found with some accreditation behind it - regardless of quality.
-"By the way, we can't negate the at release behavior, because it fits your narrative. It existed and those groups were involved."
That's the thing: I never said they wasn't a sizable contingent of that either. From the start, my response was just how wild it was to paint *MOST* detractors with such a broad brush. I still don't think I'm off-base in saying it's cringe to just say "most people who shit on x game are closet Nazis or bigots of some sort," especially when your research doesn't really validate that.
-"The article is not a trump card and the fact that you seem to think so is more troubling on your end than mine."
Bro, you literally responded with "Bring some evidence to prove me otherwise.... You're up. Maybe you can change my mind." I don't really see how I'm speaking out of turn there given this and your original comment.
-"The article was to see if you could find other people that researched this phenomenon and we can have a conversation, but you still refuse to do this."
If no other people *HAVE* researched this phenomenon, then I don't see how the next best option is highly-popular sources which counter your original claim. Given that all you're promoting is a media studies paper hyper-focusing on a specific cluster of media, why wouldn't other forms of media work as some kind of substitute? That's not side-stepping events in the slightest.
-"The final point doesn't solidify anything unless you are trying to solidify your own opinion. Albeit, it is passive aggressive, which is strange."
I don't know what that first sentence means, honestly.
Look, I'll just put it like this: try to have a frank conversation about The Order on some other non-N4G gaming forum. There isn't going to be this clean split between 'Sony fans' and 'Xbox fans' that love it or hate it. Ask Sony fans how they'd feel about paying full-price for it and you're not going to get the ardent defenses compared to some of its most popular comment sections here.
Still no evidence. I ask for you to bring contrary evidence, so maybe I might change my mind, all research can be falsifiable. This is what you are missing. We are thinking in two different universes.
You are writing sermons, which is a waste of everyone's time including yours. Bring some research and we will discuss it. As of now you have only brought superstitions.
-"I ask for you to bring contrary evidence, so maybe I might change my mind, all research can be falsifiable."
But I literally read YOUR evidence and it doesn't support the broader claims you made at the start. I'm not sure where else to go with that.
-"Bring some research and we will discuss it. As of now you have only brought superstitions."
Bro, leveraging this kind of language is so wild in the face of what you've provided. It's like unless those different communities I linked where fused together in a random media studies paper, you'd magically consider it valid. I don't understand how you're leveraging that, especially when it doesn't fortify your initial claim. You're basically retorting to me writing too much, regardless of the content itself. Just the oddest conversation with you thus far and I don't quite get it.
Amazing gameplay, but TLOU2 had one of the worst, most convoluted and uneccessary plots I ever seen in a sequel. Terrible story and the characters were forgettable. I didn't give an F about anyone in the story.
I don't think any of these divided fans, other than LoU2. The rest were either victims of biased reviews or just generally agreed that they weren't as good as they could've been or just overall disappointing.
This new Starfield mod turns the game into a city builder and colony sim, and it even adds in a variety of long sought after mechs too.
A recent report by Newzoo has shed light on the state of the gaming industry in 2023 and what the future holds. The report discussed the top ten games on each core platform based on Monthly Average Users (MAU) in 2023, unveiling some intriguing insights.
One striking observation was that Starfield emerged as the sole single-player game to make it to the top ten on Xbox and PC in terms of average MAU (Monthly Average Users), even without PlayStation data due to it not being released on that platform. This new franchise stood out among a list dominated by multiplayer and cooperative games, where the other titles had an average age of over seven years.
Admin Note: it should be noted that these figures are only stats from major publishers who make them available publicly and does not include all stats from all games within the same time period, which means that the stats are skewed toward the available data set and not real world data.
Starfield was a steam platinum tier seller in 2023( https://store.steampowered.... so the game did well. N4G seems to have an ever shifting goal post for what makes a game successful, especially if said title isn’t on your preferred platform.
Player count shouldn't really be a factor when the game was given away. What would've been real indicative is how much it sold. Which we won't get those numbers.
Truth is stsrfield was incomplete nonmatter how you put it, and it lacked alot. Lore, maps(2023), real exploration, etc. I won't even get into the stuff I think is dumb like fps and loading because it's trivial at best.
The game is also on Gamepass, so “player count” doesn’t impress me. What was the game’s total cost, including advertising, and what is the total sales?
What a bogus record. The game was on gamepass and MS acted like it was the most amazing thing to show up on a screen since moving pictures.
Its like breaking record for climbing but I took an elevator
@shinoff2183 the game topped steam charts from purchases so what are you on about goofy. It was not given to steam players for free and topped charts as a platinum seller.
We can have our opinions on the game but its financial success can't be understated
I never said Gamepass was free.
I have had Gamepass Ultimate on my PC and Xbox. How does that change what I said?
It's like congratulating wiisports for being the wiis top selling game when it was prepackaged with every system 🤣
Yes it is. When an irrelevant disappointment keeps on trying to be relevant...it's sad
''Starfield Achieved an Unprecedented Player Count Record.....''
Now imagine all those tears of suffering.
The ONLY single player game in the top 10... Interesting. Not Tears of the Kingdom, Not Hogwarts Legacy, Not Spiderman 2, Baldurs Gate 3... Starfield is in the Top 10. The way people talk about the game as if it's the biggest flop ever contradicts reality. Goes to show that none of your opinions on this website matters. Reality disagrees. No matter how hard you try to spin this. Starfield came in late and blew every other game that people thought were "better" games out of the water in reality. We love to see it. Congrats to Bethesda and Xbox.
"Starfield is in the Top 10. The way people talk about the game as if it's the biggest flop ever contradicts reality. Goes to show that none of your opinions on this website matters. Reality disagrees."
Absolutely! Starfield is an absolute success!
Direct quote from the article:
"One striking observation was that Starfield emerged as the sole single-player game to make it to the top ten on Xbox and PC in terms of average MAU (Monthly Average Users), even without PlayStation data due to it not being released on that platform. This new franchise stood out among a list dominated by multiplayer and cooperative games, where the other titles had an average age of over seven years."
Let them fight the numbers!
The game was included on gamepass, was released by the creator of the much-loved skyrim, and so they ride that hype train of "overhyped game from a popular dev that is being given away free to GP subs" to get every person who bothered to even try it for 5 minutes to drive up the monthly active users on PC and Xbox (excluding nintendo and PS5), creating a hype-point to sell the lie that their game is doing good, while still refusing to release actual sales numbers. Can't "fight the numbers" when the actual sales numbers aren't being released...
@fr0sty the game was a platinum seller on steam where folks needed to pay full price to get the "its only successful because it was on GP" angle is looking extra goofy rn
Top 10 of what? Currently on Xbox Live its not cracking the Top 40 (41st) of most played games. On Game Pass where you play it free I'm told it can't crack the top 10 (15th) and on Steam its not one of the Top 100 most played. Sure a lot people bought into the pre-release hype as they did with Halo Infinite and jumped in on release but Starfield isn't currently on any top 10 most played list. So maybe back in 2023 just after release the game had good player count but that's no longer the case as Starfield The Game of the Generation suffered the same fate as Halo Infinite did when gamers actually got to play the game they didn't like it and quickly moved on.
People keep jumping on this game. Its okay, they are still giving their time to it. Might as well be playing it
It seems they don't take into account Nintendo and it's mucky regarding PlayStation.
Not saying that Starfield was not popular in 2023 but simply saying that this article seems to cherry-pick some data in order to fit the headline.
This website covered it better. This is the reality. Deal with it. Nintendo is covered properly and so is Playstation. Your excuses don't matter.
https://exputer.com/news/ga...
@Zeref, read the articles you send.
“ On the flip side, Switch has a few exclusive single-player titles on the top ten list.”
Don’t trust headlines, it is immediately contradicted in the body of the article
You’re full of shit lol
Starfield was free to what...25 million? people.
No sales numbers released. Estimates are around 2.5-3 million. We know it dropped out of Steam Top 100 sales after only 2 months.
Good job trying to put down those other games that not only sold butt loads, but actually were GOTY winners/nominees.
Your insecurity is showing because nowhere did I put these games down. I personally enjoyed Hogwarts Legacy much more than Starfield.
Im a ps fan and even I know 12 million true it, surely we can do simple math, steam states it sold 3.8 million so the other 8 million either paid for it on Xbox or tried it included in their monthly sub
But yeh we will never know how many it was destined to sell because gp can make any game seem like a success
If still say 3.8 million on steam is pretty dang good tho
You're wasting your time, actual logical thinking and context doesn't exist to these people, they know all this full well anyway. They know it didn;t move the hardware needle, barely anyone was rushing out to grab and xbox to play this, there was no huge increase in GP subs, no sales data has been given (no doubt it will pretty well on steam at least), gee I wonder why. It's easier for MS to to not give any context and talk about MAUs, planets explored, bullets fired lmao.
And known of those games were given away on gamepass. What the sold numbers. Idc about ms player count that's a bs metric
More people played it than any other single player game. Which is all that matters. Go cry about it.
Just give a congratulations and move on stop being part of the whine crowd around here.
You mean games people actually had to buy or that are exclusive to one platform? As opposed to being available on Games Pass to all PC and Xbox players, with extraordinary levels of hype and marketing behind it? Yeah, "interesting", but sadly "player count" may even entail sitting on the main menu for five minutes, as I'm sure it's all those who booted the game. I mean, I played Need for Speed Unbound for 10 minutes on PS Extra, I guess I'm part of the "player count".
Starfield may be successful from metrics like these, but the fact remains that it pales in comparison to all of Bethesda's previous works and is the lowest rated of their titles. If you want to talk about reality, Starfield will be forgotten in a year with a very low engagement: Skyrim, Morrowind, Oblivion, Fallout 3 will live on.
Edit: I'm hoping the modding scene changes that for Starfield. I'm sure someone will have the bright idea of making landing on planets a thing. Who knows.
But if you want to be excited about "player count" over actual sales and critical performance, you do that I suppose.
Yeah i'm more excited about how many people played the game over how much money the trillion dollar corporation made from it.
@Zeref The point is somewhere across the globe where you missed it. Sales and good critical performance means we get more and better, the developer is likely to grow. Player count in a single player game that is available on a subscription service is utterly meaningless without knowing the criteria, because playing for 10 minutes or a couple of hours and deleting the game can make you part of player count for all I know.
It topped charts on steam as a platinum seller where folks had to pay full price to play so despite ratings and reviews the "reality" you are referencing is the reality that Starfield was a financial success.
We can debate whether its a good game and worthy of all the hype it received but what can't be debated is the games financial success.
The game was likely given to over 8 million people via GP subscription and still managed to sell millions on Steam...put a nail in that "GP hurts sales" argument as well while we're at it.
@mrcatastropheAF Hate to break it to you buddy but Starfield certainly didn't sell many millions on Steam, there are no sales stats available and some estimates put it at 2.5 million copies sold in total across all platforms, which pales compares to previous Bethesda games. Not to mention its active Steam player count, meaning people currently playing the game, has dwindled to numbers less than games like Skyrim, The Witcher 3, Fallout 4, heck even Batman Arkham Knight still has half the average player count of Starfield.
Yet, we can't find any sales numbers for Starfield, so you cannot draw the conclusions you're drawing. You also used the phrase "platinum seller" without defining it. What does that mean? Top 12 sold titles? 400,000 copies?
You cannot conclude the game was a financial success, because Microsoft does its usual of telling you about player count and hours spent orbiting planets but won't disclose sales.
There's no insecurity. I was pointing how how ignorant your logic is when you apply some common sense.
You suggested the game did well because of how good it is, when that had nothing to do with it.
"This website covered it better. This is the reality. Deal with it. Nintendo is covered properly and so is Playstation. Your excuses don't matter."
Did you bother to check your data?
https://exputer.com/news/ga...
there's a nice graph in the article giving info and Starfield appears as #8 on the Xbox Platform but appears nowhere else (not on PC). As for Nintendo, they validated only USA and UK data and the usual single-player entries are all there (Zelda, Mario).
So again what does this article try to prove? that if I squint my eyes and believe in Santa it will make Starfield the most-played game of all time? the best game played between Date X and Date Y?
Again there's no concrete explanation on how they are gathering the data and how it can be proven fact for the world.
heck here's one concrete data in a similar fashion
According to the games being played by PeteBloodyOnion on his average game time
Walkabout minigolf is the most game played of the year 2023 putting an Indy Quest title ahead of Massive popular games like COD, Fortenite, etc. Walkabout Minigolf is secretly showing that VR is growing fast.
The issue is that the title suggests it reached top 10 overall across Xbox, PC, and PS5. The data clearly shows it was only in the top 10 on xbox. There is no overall top 10 in their report. Also Switch has TotK, Mario Wonder, etc. No idea why they don't count. Also, MAU data is collected by most countries so they just gathered it all together. I'd trust the numbers/data they're presenting
Now see its ranking if it wasn't given away 'free'. Baffles me how much people cling to stuff. It didn't blow anything away. It isn't hard to spin anything, the massive marker is its the only thing in your list you could play without paying anything extra. Also, it literally says without playstation data, so how can they include it in the wording above playstation. So it's just an Xbox and PC list 🙃
Incompetent response. On the surface you can say that but behind it all as
Others have explained it in reality was a flop compared to what it should have done
A flop that sold at least 4 million on Steam and likely has 10s of millions of players on Gamepass or bought on Xbox and was played by more people than any other single player game 🙂
No matter how you spin your theory that it's a flop does not add up. Hard data can't be argued against.
THIS JUST IN!!! Xbox Series X leads every other console and PC by most drops of sweat emitted from the palms of their players... no data was available for PS5, PC, or Switch, but this surely means that Xbox is #1 above all others, because none of the other systems were even in the top 10!!!
Obviously it was never the biggest flop ever, but it also has a lot of issues that people have spoken on and thoroughly detailed. And it didn't win game of the year or rpg or whatever, so it obviously didn't blow every other game away either. It's really just another Bethesda game at the end of the day.
@Zeref
Except it isn't "the ONLY single player game in the top 10" - right above where it states that is the chart that shows Tears of the Kingdom, Super Mario Bros. Wonder, Animal Crossing: New Horizons, and Hogwarts Legacy in the Switch Top 10.
Also remember that these reports are put together by analyst groups looking to sell their information to investors. They don't say where they get their information from and most of it is vague guesses meant to impress those who know nothing of the actual video game market. The fact that they are comparing the MAU of 4 different platforms without mentioning the actual size of the userbase shows how flawed this report is. The top 10 MAU on Xbox is going to mean something different than the MAU on Switch which has 4 times as many users
It was top 10 on only xbox ......imagine cheering because it was number 8 in a list of terrible games for xbox. This isn't about the other platforms lol
"And yet it was played more than any other single player game"
You say that as if it backs up any claim you made. It, in fact, did not 'blow every other game out the water.' That statement doesn't even make any sense.
That's like saying Fortnite is good because millions of junior high school kids are playing it.
I haven't seen a single award recognition for Starfield all year.
The data was only pc and Xbox. Why would you think tears of the kingdom or Spider-Man 2 would show up?
LOL and how many of those actually completed the game, or even played for more than a couple hours?
Same can be said for any game. Hell 50% of Baldurs Gate Players didn't even beat Act 1, 10% didn't even complete the tutorial. Baldurs Gate, easily one of the most popular games last year. Full priced, half priced on a subscription doesn't matter. Doesn't change ppls gaming habits. Hey, you would think if you spent 70 you would sit and get the most of out said game. As I said ppls gaming habits have changed over the past decade more distractions and being pulled around constantly. Yes even made worse with something like GP. How many beat it or complete is a redundant metric.
@Lightning77 You're so right, player count and how many players beat a game, especially on a subscription service, is a redundant metric. However unlike Starfield, Balders Gate 3 can boast very high sales and exceptional critical performance. Once someone buys a game, it's irrelevant what they do with it thereafter. As long as it's not a refund, the sale is made and the developer gets theirs. With Games Pass, playing for 10 minutes and deleting may make you part of the "player count" but it certainly is a redundant metric.
Baldurs Gate 3 is still in top 10 sales on steam and top 10 played games (released before starfield) while starfield is like #300 below games like division 2 and fishing planet
Everybody would want to play it, as everyone played Skyrim. But that doesn't mean it'll have staying power. I don't believe it will have as strong legs as Skyrim had.
"I don't believe it will have as strong legs as Skyrim had."
No game needs to have strong legs as Skyrim to be successful.
Starfield is nothing but a VERY successful new IP which performed way better in comparison to other big, beloved and well established gaming franchises.
Congrats to Todd and everyone at Bethesda.
I can´t wait for Shattered Space and the official Mod support coming this year
What was that figure from earlier in the week, like 60% of game time or something like that is spent on games older than 6 years?
No wonder it's like that, when people think even RPGs *need* to have legs for a decade, immediately when they launch.
You know a game is doing bad when it has to resort to other statistics like MAU, which can be easily skewed, instead of outright sales, to justify its existence.
But it needs to make money. We'll never know if it did. But maybe a lot of people just paid for 1 month of gamepass and that was that. I'm glad I didn't pay, never want to play it again. By far the worst Bethesda rpg.
You're right...Starfield is nothing but initial success in monthly active users. That's all we know for sure!
The downvotes though. These people want this game to be a failure so bad. Its okay, people have been jumping them since fallout 4. People want to strong arm Bethesda into making different games. If you dont like what they make…. Dont play it
You don't believe it or you don't want it to cuz it's an Xbox game? The game is not even a year old. Hasn't even gotten it's first DLC yet or even official mod support.
I just get the impression that lots of people were dissapointed. They kinda removed the one thing that gave their games appeal, leaving you with just the jank.
I'm sure there are tons of fans, but it's one of the more contentious releases from Bethesda (still mixed reviews on steam). I'm sure Fallout 76 also have fans, but no one would claim it was a fan favorite.
“One striking observation was that Starfield emerged as the sole single-player game to make it to the top ten on Xbox and PC in terms of average MAU (Monthly Average Users), even without PlayStation data due to it not being released on that platform”
There are too many caveats to parse what this is saying. The article links to a report from “newzoo” that can be sent to your e-mail inbox.
What's weird is their data (you can open the report as a PDF) shows Starfield as #8 on xbox and not in the top 10 at all for PC. Also TotK and Mario Wonder, among other games, are #2 and #3 on Switch. Their wording is very strange.
