Support NeoGAF

[ethomaz]

I'd be nervous af having metacritic determine my future. Wooof!

People on Twitter do no favor for context.
Better metascore = more sales.

If Days Gone was a 90+ metascore it should have sold twice what it sold and the sequel was a thing.

It was not... have a lot of bugs at launch that decreased the metascore, sold a bit more than 5 million units and it is not worth investing anymore.

Metascore is not a metric for publishers because they love metascore but because they drive sales... to build a successful franchise you need that... and devs will be rewarded for that.

To give a example how dumb that Twitter is... if Days Gone sold 10+ million it should have 50 metascore that a sequel should be made.

It is easier to archive better sales with better metascore but the destiny of a sequel is based in sales not metascore... metascore have very little influence on that... budget x sales is what drives sequels.

 

[ethomaz]

Just to add a last few line...

IMO if I were a publisher about AAA (> 100m budget)

- Metascore 90+, sales 10+ million = Sequel (BEST)
- Metascore 90+, sales ~5 million = Sequel
- Metascore 70-80, sales 10+ million = Sequel
- Metascore 70-80, sales ~5 million = No Sequel (WORST)

I mean only a point was drive by Metascore dure potential even with low sales.
All the others are based on sales.

You don’t have mind share (metascore) or sales so why should you make a sequel? Because a few fans signed a list?

I should invest in something else sequel or even something new that I can build better mindshare and sales potential.

 

[kyliethicc]

I'd be nervous af having metacritic determine my future. Wooof!

Shawn Layden said in 2018 that his philosophy for 1st party games was "first, best, or must."

First = weird experimental games, like Dreams & Concrete Genie, that are trying new ideas
Best = most of Sony's games, like God of War and The Last of Us, where the goal is make the best games in their genre.
Must = when launching a new platform, like PSVR, gotta have launch games.





Shawn specifically said he has no interest in making just an average action game or the 4th best racing game, he wants GOTYs like Uncharted, he wants Gran Turismo and MLB to be the best in class, etc. With that mentality, there's clearly gonna be disappointment with Days Gone. Look at all of PS4's big 1st party singleplayer games from 2015 to 2020, and their MC scores, Days Gone is the obvious one to not green light a sequel for on PS5. (And maybe Detroit too.) If it had come out with a 80 instead of a 70, I bet it'd be getting a sequel.

 

[Maxwell Jacob Friedman]

I dont know if its risky, but ignoring what went on the last couple of years and labeling it as fud is a mistake. you have a studio that created a really good game and then you had them waste a year supporting tlou then another year on an uncharted spinoff that didnt pan out.

10 years ago, ND used to make and release full games like u2 and u3 in two years. now sony is just sending these guys off to other studios and taking two years just to greenlight pitches.

i know they are just being safe since games cost a lot more than they did ten years ago, but i also dont see how having a studio that costs tens of million of dollars to run every year do nothing but do support work and come up with new pitches for two years is any less expensive. you still have to pay them the same amount of money you wouldve if they had started dev on a new title right away.

p.s games cost more than ever to make but they also make a lot more than they used to make. sony's gaming division has never been more profitable. they can afford to make these expensive games more than ever.

How is a new ip that is not yet going to b established not risky...? It something that can easily fail if the audience doesnt resonate with it. Greenlighting Days Gone 2 would have guaranteed sales for the people who bought and loved/liked the first game, it has an established base already.

They were remaking TLOU and helping NG during that time because they simply had nothing to do between projects which makes sense, do you want to put people to work or have people lose their jobs? The Days Gone 2 pitch was denied so they had nothing to fall back on until their newest pitch f the newer IP. The Ng swopped in and liked what they were doing with TLOU remake and took over now since their new IP was greenlit and now they have to get on production with that.

No shit because the cost of games, production as well as quality is going up. Games are becoming more expensive to make meaning they are going to take longer to make. R* for instance released how many versions of GTAV and then only one IP (red dead 2) on last generation of consoles. If you are greenlighting pitches it better be a good pitch because that is time and a shit ton of money and assets wasted if its not banger.

 

[SlimySnake]

How is a new ip that is not yet going to b established not risky...? It something that can easily fail if the audience doesnt resonate with it. Greenlighting Days Gone 2 would have guaranteed sales for the people who bought and loved/liked the first game, it has an established base already.

They were remaking TLOU and helping NG during that time because they simply had nothing to do between projects which makes sense, do you want to put people to work or have people lose their jobs? The Days Gone 2 pitch was denied so they had nothing to fall back on until their newest pitch f the newer IP. The Ng swopped in and liked what they were doing with TLOU remake and took over now since their new IP was greenlit and now they have to get on production with that.

No shit because the cost of games, production as well as quality is going up. Games are becoming more expensive to make meaning they are going to take longer to make. R* for instance released how many versions of GTAV and then only one IP (red dead 2) on last generation of consoles. If you are greenlighting pitches it better be a good pitch because that is time and a shit ton of money and assets wasted if its not banger.

I suppose it's riskier than greenlighting a sequel. TBH, I dont remember what I was thinking when i said that three days ago. Maybe it will come to me later.

My main point was that it's not all fud. I think the execs and the studio heads need to be held responsible for developers having no work to do after a project ends. That's their only job. I agree that the production costs are going up, but thats because they pay these guys good money to just sit around for months? Or to do support work? I am in a software engineering firm and while i did my time in support back when i first started, if my managers ever found out that i was doing support work over R&D they go nuts. their job is to fill my year with work.

Two years wasted by the Sony Bend team is two years wasted. If they had greenlit a new IP 2 years ago, we might actually get it in the next 2 years. Now we are looking at 2026 at best. And now ND is doing the same? ND shouldve had like three pitches greenlit before their game ever finished.

 

[mckmas8808]

He cant. They both mention how Sony PR and Sony Marketing has turned to this ridiculous WE MUST NOT ALLOW DEVS TO SPEAK policy where any kind of genuine conversation like simply cannot take place.

It's sad but it's emblematic of current Sony PR. No one is allowed to talk or react or do anything. It's like Jaffe just said Sony is having a rough fucking two months and there is radio silence from them. That might work in 2012 or 2013 but times have changed. People want immediacy in everything and sony is just not adopting fast enough.

It's really hard for people to not jump to conclusions when Sony are being this fucking quiet about everything. After all, if Sony hadnt said no to kojima, surely they would come out and deny that rumor. if Sony had bluepoint working on the MGS rumor, surely they would deny the fact that MS is the one having BP make. If they hadnt cancelled Days Gone 2, surely they would say hey we are making it. But because they are completely silent, people have no choice but to assume the worst.

Except most of the stories are either bad for a specific fan base or they are ONLY bad because Sony doesn't respond to anything, anymore. But most of the time when they do talk, it gets alot of praise and people are still buying the PS5 like it's only going to be made for 6 more months.

 

[mckmas8808]

I think by Metacritic, he just means a game that both critics and people love. And that there is no compromise on quality -- which is a really good thing and shows why and how Sony has been making such hits after hits for years now.

Most underrated comment in this thread, right here.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

People on Twitter do no favor for context.
Better metascore = more sales.

If Days Gone was a 90+ metascore it should have sold twice what it sold and the sequel was a thing.

It was not... have a lot of bugs at launch that decreased the metascore, sold a bit more than 5 million units and it is not worth investing anymore.

Metascore is not a metric for publishers because they love metascore but because they drive sales... to build a successful franchise you need that... and devs will be rewarded for that.

To give a example how dumb that Twitter is... if Days Gone sold 10+ million it should have 50 metascore that a sequel should be made.

It is easier to archive better sales with better metascore but the destiny of a sequel is based in sales not metascore... metascore have very little influence on that... budget x sales is what drives sequels.

Depends on the game.

FIFA, COD, Destiny got games rated in the 70s, yet they get sequels. I'm sure there's others.

The key thing is if these games are planned to be sequalized to start with a road map. So even if a game doesnt review great (Destiny 1), there's still content to come and the dev/publisher telling gamers it'll be supported with Destiny 2 even though gamers were still playing Destiny 1.

By the looks of it Days Gone is not one of those games. A sequel would be like a start from scratch game where they are waiting for sales and reviews before green lighting it.

 

[ethomaz]

Depends on the game.

FIFA, COD, Destiny got games rated in the 70s, yet they get sequels. I'm sure there's others.

The key thing is if these games are planned to be sequalized to start with a road map. So even if a game doesnt review great (Destiny 1), there's still content to come and the dev/publisher telling gamers it'll be supported with Destiny 2 even though gamers were still playing Destiny 1.

By the looks of it Days Gone is not one of those games. A sequel would be like a start from scratch game where they are waiting for sales and reviews before green lighting it.

Yeap each game is a case.
It just that people are making now that Days Gone sequel was canceled due the metascore that is not true... if the game had sold 10+ million units even Sony is not crazy enough to not make a sequel even with lower metascore.

The budget x sales in Days Gone probably didn't reach a ideal scenario for a sequel and the metascore being lower than expected did not help.

I mean there is a difference in sell enough to cover the costs and sell enough to be worth for a sequel investiment.

 

[DJTaurus]

 

[IntentionalPun]

Devs being bonused/rated/whatever by metascore isn't just about the association with sales. It's not fair to rate devs based on sales because you could give a crap dev your most famous IP, and spend more on marketing, and the game would sell better than a great dev who is creating a new IP and you don't market it as much.

Obviously an incredibly imperfect system and puts you are the whim of critics.. but it's more fair than sales.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Devs being bonused/rated/whatever by metascore isn't just about the association with sales. It's not fair to rate devs based on sales because you could give a crap dev your most famous IP, and spend more on marketing, and the game would sell better than a great dev who is creating a new IP and you don't market it as much.

Obviously an incredibly imperfect system and puts you are the whim of critics.. but it's more fair than sales.

At companies, sales is always an important metric. In particular Net sales and profit measures. Gross sales means nothing. Marketing managers can have market share % goals to strive for.

It looks like in gaming reviews scores are a thing. At my companies, nobody cares about review scores like someone scouring Amazon and Walmart customer ratings, or Google reviews.

Blame can always be shifted to other departments or budgets, but as a whole as long as the targets are reasonable and management is willing to re-look at the targets set based on factors (ie. covid heavily impacted companies in 2020), then that's as good as it gets.

Every company I've worked at sets initial targets, can revise targets mid-year, and then after the year is over, it is up to the high level execs to evaluate performance based off factors. Another factor that is out of the hands of people is currency exchange. That is always a discussion point because how can you hold a Canadian Division getting grilled 1-2% on a annual currency swing which nobody has control over.

Bonuses are paid at a corporate level. It comes down to reasonable targets and people willing to consider out of my control factors. If bosses set bad targets or dont give a shit about things, then you'll get a bad target to go after and people will be pissed.

I wonder how loose the targets are at game companies. If the target is 1 million copies at $50 million net sales at an MC score of 80, how hard they are on it.

I can tell you from above, not only will bosses try to help out workers by factoring in cases they had no control, but every company always hedges their bets and purposely overstates goals a bit. Not in an impossibly achievable way. But we goose it up 1-2% as buffer, when the real number committed to corporate is a touch lower than they think. We always do that. Only some of us at the office know the true sales and profit numbers we need.

So for a gaming company, the real number for a bonus pay out is 950,000 copies at a 77 score.