Any given game being more successful does not make Avowed unsuccessful.
This premise is flat out wrong. A cheaper game, from the same studio, captured more return customers than a flagship with a massive ad campaign and significantly more effort behind it. That’s an epic blunder, so much so, Patel had to do the rounds in the press to appeal to the stock holders and paint a pretty picture, lest MS dissolve the studio before Outer worlds 2 is done.
This level of reality distortion field is almost as the one from the people (and some subhuman racists) saying AC Shadows flopped. AC Shadows delivered (according to reviews) exactly what was promised to its customers, an AC game in Japan with shinobi. I haven’t touched AC since Black Flag, but if I were a fan of Ubisoft open worlds, I’d be ecstatic right now. A Ubisoft game delivering on what was promised without game breaking bugs is actually remarkable. It’s still a mediocre game, but for its niche, it’s a solid release. It’s diametrically opposite to Avowed, which advertised a deep RPG and sold a fantasy action game with no depth or interactivity.
If someone would have told me, a year ago, Avowed would review worse and, have lower user score than AC Shadows, I would have laughed in their face. That game has suffered controversy over controversy just because they decided to have an afro samurai and the conservative anglophones lost their shit.
A cheaper game captures more customers, yes. It doesn’t mean that Avowed didn’t make its money back. Retention as a metric doesn’t matter at all for an offline game you play and finish, and depending on how Grounded is monetized, it might not matter for that game either, if the intention is that you just play with your friends. The profit or loss of Avowed, next to the hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue that Microsoft brings in in a year, hardly matters to investors, and I don’t know where you got it in your head that these media appearances are a plea to investors. Microsoft is an enormous behemoth operating at much larger scales than any one video game. Their strategy is Game Pass. They’re all in on that strategy. If Avowed seems to provide value for Game Pass and keep people subscribed, then they and their investors are happy. For everyone who isn’t interested in Game Pass, they’re happy to sell it to you for $70. You’re just making shit up as you go instead of admitting what you do and do not know.
The profit or loss of Avowed, next to the hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue that Microsoft brings in in a year, hardly matters to investors
*Looks at tango, arkane and the rest of the cemetery.
Yes, every time anyone at MS said the engagement and GP users was amazing it was totally true. Lets believe that and appreciate how normal it is to give interviews to bloomberg saying, “we totally didn’t fail our objectives with this mediocre piece of media”.
Time is on my side, I’ll just save this interaction.
Then if and when you revisit it, you can see a reminder here that the problem here all along is that you’re assuming you know it failed off of bonkers reasoning, not that you may have guessed right. You just criticized those dummies over AC Shadows, and here you are doing the same thing.
You calling something bonkers doesn’t void the fact that a demonstrably cheaper game from the same developer was far more reaching and generated more engagement than the halo product from the same stable that got a 3D ad in times square. Everything else is cope.
I find it amusing that you’re using the Conway “alternative facts” defense in the same breath you compare me to the AC shadows detractors. Projection for the win I guess.
This premise is flat out wrong. A cheaper game, from the same studio, captured more return customers than a flagship with a massive ad campaign and significantly more effort behind it. That’s an epic blunder, so much so, Patel had to do the rounds in the press to appeal to the stock holders and paint a pretty picture, lest MS dissolve the studio before Outer worlds 2 is done.
This level of reality distortion field is almost as the one from the people (and some subhuman racists) saying AC Shadows flopped. AC Shadows delivered (according to reviews) exactly what was promised to its customers, an AC game in Japan with shinobi. I haven’t touched AC since Black Flag, but if I were a fan of Ubisoft open worlds, I’d be ecstatic right now. A Ubisoft game delivering on what was promised without game breaking bugs is actually remarkable. It’s still a mediocre game, but for its niche, it’s a solid release. It’s diametrically opposite to Avowed, which advertised a deep RPG and sold a fantasy action game with no depth or interactivity.
If someone would have told me, a year ago, Avowed would review worse and, have lower user score than AC Shadows, I would have laughed in their face. That game has suffered controversy over controversy just because they decided to have an afro samurai and the conservative anglophones lost their shit.
A cheaper game captures more customers, yes. It doesn’t mean that Avowed didn’t make its money back. Retention as a metric doesn’t matter at all for an offline game you play and finish, and depending on how Grounded is monetized, it might not matter for that game either, if the intention is that you just play with your friends. The profit or loss of Avowed, next to the hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue that Microsoft brings in in a year, hardly matters to investors, and I don’t know where you got it in your head that these media appearances are a plea to investors. Microsoft is an enormous behemoth operating at much larger scales than any one video game. Their strategy is Game Pass. They’re all in on that strategy. If Avowed seems to provide value for Game Pass and keep people subscribed, then they and their investors are happy. For everyone who isn’t interested in Game Pass, they’re happy to sell it to you for $70. You’re just making shit up as you go instead of admitting what you do and do not know.
*Looks at tango, arkane and the rest of the cemetery.
Yes, every time anyone at MS said the engagement and GP users was amazing it was totally true. Lets believe that and appreciate how normal it is to give interviews to bloomberg saying, “we totally didn’t fail our objectives with this mediocre piece of media”.
Time is on my side, I’ll just save this interaction.
Then if and when you revisit it, you can see a reminder here that the problem here all along is that you’re assuming you know it failed off of bonkers reasoning, not that you may have guessed right. You just criticized those dummies over AC Shadows, and here you are doing the same thing.
You calling something bonkers doesn’t void the fact that a demonstrably cheaper game from the same developer was far more reaching and generated more engagement than the halo product from the same stable that got a 3D ad in times square. Everything else is cope.
I find it amusing that you’re using the Conway “alternative facts” defense in the same breath you compare me to the AC shadows detractors. Projection for the win I guess.