The Last Of Us 2 - now with protagonist-murdering trannies

[Hamster]

 

[DeepOcean]

Lots of these games have record-breaking day 1 sales then by week 2 it goes to literally nothing.

Of course. When they have oddly specific metrics for 'breaking records', it tells you that they're trying to cover for something.

Just like Battlefield V. Remember the SJWs crowing about LUL RECORD BREAKING SALES (after significantly discounting it week 1), later the company had to admit that it massively underperformed expectations to the tune of millions of copies, and less than 2 years later their BS 'games as service' is officially a dead game.

EA placed a minimum target of 8 million copies, they sold 7 millions, but that doesnt tell the whole story, EA already discounted a possible backlash with this number as 8 million copies is a low number for a massive AAA game

 

[Tehdagah]

Is it over bros?

Spoiler

Cinematic experiences will never be the same

 

[Melcar]

Why couldn't it be a hot lesbian?

 

[sullynathan]

Exactly, FF VII Remake also smashed sales that processed to drop off a cliff after to the point Square come out and told they werent going to deviate from the original.
I learned to ignore week 1 sales as they are meaningless, what matters is sustainable sales because all you need is a large marketing campaign to build up hype so people buy the game based on hype alone, the problem is the people that will wait and buy it later.

But why? I'm led to believe that AAA games make most of their money from their first week - first month sales. Why would you care so much to "sustain" sales of a single player only game as years go by when you're selling the game for $20 or less at that point and making far less money?

This franchise is dead.

Yea sure

 

[jackofshadows]

I'm led to believe that AAA games make most of their money from their first week - first month sales.

Check this shit out, then:

 

[Morpheus Kitami]

I feel like a big RPG probably isn't the best comparison, neither is the original TLOU, now that I think of it, since there was that remaster. Maybe they are the same after all. A better comparison would be something that doesn't come out yearly, yet is popular. I'm not sure if something like that exists anymore. Far Cry maybe?

 

[sullynathan]

I'm led to believe that AAA games make most of their money from their first week - first month sales.

Check this shit out, then:

That says sales and it is still greatest in the first year of release.

By 2019 and 2020, CDPR is selling the Witcher 3 at about $20 and it goes on sale regularly for even lower that. Even as I'm typing, the game is being given for free given that you own it somewhere else, which is funny given that having at as "played" on your PS4 counts as a digital sale.

2019 sales of the game is also probably inflated due to the fact that it released in the switch that year. Something like that will likely happen with TLOU2 releases on PS5.

 

[vota DC]

Normies buy games because the liked the last one - online controversies don't reach the sealed copies buying crowd. Only the sales numbers of a sequel will tell if the brand has been harmed.

Yep, been saying that for a while. Last of Us 3 will tell how many people actually disliked this one. Sequels sell based on how much people liked the last one.

Since It is story driven fans will buy It after Druckmann's death (don't expect him to survive long with drug parties with Anita, he was unable to voice Manny because health issues) if new director will claim to respect the franchise (eg play with Tommy to dismember Abby at the beginning of the game).

 

[Black]

Is it over bros?

Spoiler

Cinematic experiences will never be the same

Yes, it is an anti-video game. It's opposite of what video games should be. Barely interactive, linear slog with "gameplay" as a break from cut-scenes instead of other way around.
But then again, AAA gaming is already bottom of the garbotrashcan so nothing of value will be lost.

 

[Drakron]

But why? I'm led to believe that AAA games make most of their money from their first week - first month sales. Why would you care so much to "sustain" sales of a single player only game as years go by when you're selling the game for $20 or less at that point and making far less money?

Because these days a $80 tag doesnt cut it, its DLC and other monetization that require a installed playerbase.

For example, Total War: Warhammer II is currently CA cashcow because its DLC sells as Total War: Three Kingdoms that outsold TW:W2 at launch just had 3 pay DLCs and they pretty much done with it, the numbers dont lie ... TW:W2 average number of players in the last 30 days 37,497.3 as TW:3K the number is 6,890.4 and its not sustainable to create more DLC for TW:3K because the players arent growing.

Another example Tomb Raider 2013 sold very well except it also cost a lot and Square wasnt going to greenlight a sequel until Microsoft payed for its exclusivity, Titanfall also sold a lot on its launch and then sales collapsed with marketing costs being so high that it was likely a loss for EA in the end.

Lets say this sells 1 million copies on month one, at $80 this means 80 million that sounds a lot ... until you factor costs of having Naughty Dog running for all its development time, then marketing ... 80 millions aint going to cut it, they need more ... a lot more, if this costed then 120 million we are looking at then needing to sell at least 4 million copies before it starts to break even and if word of month makes then from selling 1 million day one and then next month doesnt break 100k sales, this is a problem to reach those goals.

 

[sullynathan]

Because these days a $80 tag doesnt cut it, its DLC and other monetization that require a installed playerbase.

For example, Total War: Warhammer II is currently CA cashcow because its DLC sells as Total War: Three Kingdoms that outsold TW:W2 at launch just had 3 pay DLCs and they pretty much done with it, the numbers dont lie ... TW:W2 average number of players in the last 30 days 37,497.3 as TW:3K the number is 6,890.4 and its not sustainable to create more DLC for TW:3K because the players arent growing.

Another example Tomb Raider 2013 sold very well except it also cost a lot and Square wasnt going to greenlight a sequel until Microsoft payed for its exclusivity, Titanfall also sold a lot on its launch and then sales collapsed with marketing costs being so high that it was likely a loss for EA in the end.

Lets say this sells 1 million copies on month one, at $80 this means 80 million that sounds a lot ... until you factor costs of having Naughty Dog running for all its development time, then marketing ... 80 millions aint going to cut it, they need more ... a lot more, if this costed then 120 million we are looking at then needing to sell at least 4 million copies before it starts to break even and if word of month makes then from selling 1 million day one and then next month doesnt break 100k sales, this is a problem to reach those goals.

One only has to look at Sony's most recent games to see that they can quickly make the profits needed without much need for other types of monetization. We're talking about only single player games here with little DLC and microtransactions. They did this with God of War, recent Uncharted, Spiderman, Horizon, etc. Sony isn't in the same position as Square, they make most of their money from PS plus subscribers, not so much X exclusive selling DLC or microtransactions because they even removed multiplayer and microtransactions in this game unlike it's predecessor.

With how much better their games are selling this gen than last, I doubt they give that much of a shit. I mean, does anyone even believe this game will be so off mark like Tomb Raider or only sell one mill in first week when Final Fantasy did far better?

 

[LabRat]

 

[Van-d-all]

Based on the pics and videos the level of violence is pretty normal. Where is all the gore people are talking about?

Nowhere. They're being whiny bitches as usual, because for once killing people at least tries to look real.

 

[turkishronin]

 

[LESS T_T]

Pretty candid impressions from Larian's publishing director

TLOU2 is basically Spec Ops: The Line, but more miserable and less grim. Which is fine. It does the Tomb Raider thing of pretending gameplay juxtaposes narrative. An extremely good recipe that comes about every 4 years or so.

It's about as dark as a Metro game but has less fun with it. But it's less profound than something like The Road. It's all a bit The Walking Dead. But with the gameplay loop of a Lars Von Trier Uncharted adaptation.

It's a technological marvel and clearly an astronomical feat (it's long, and dense, which is really saying something for a AAA narrative game) but it should have been darker. Not more violent, but darker. It's much more violent than it is dark.

Thematically it's about love and loss but so is everything. It should have been about the courage of hopelessness. You can take it further.

The characters are likable. I liked all of them. They're human insofar as they are bold. But they are intense. All the time. I don't know why writers do this. Non stop intensity. Even during mellow moments. Everybody shits. Even during an apocalypse.

It's a good game. A masterfully crafted game. I would love to see a TLOU2 where people weren't telling them to tone it down - across the board. From gameplay to themes. It feels very Disney in that sense. Not even close to it's cinema brethren.

You can't both publicly fight for video games as art and seriously claim that TLOU2 is dark in any meaningful sense. It's a very violent game and in many ways a very human game, but it's no darker than Tomb Raider. The gore just has good graphics.

If anything I salute ND for just bringing AAA narrative games to the level of any ok TV show. Enemy characters react to being shot, and their friends dying. There's good pacing. Characters are believable. This should be normal but it's not. Games have so far to come.

It says something about games media that they conflate darkness with violence. Darkness is conceptual. Tortuous. It is not violence. Disney films are dark. They are not violent.

 

[AwesomeButton]

If anything I salute ND for just bringing AAA narrative games to the level of any ok TV show.

to the level of a pretty bad and by the numbers TV show.

 

[Van-d-all]

But why? I'm led to believe that AAA games make most of their money from their first week - first month sales. Why would you care so much to "sustain" sales of a single player only game as years go by when you're selling the game for $20 or less at that point and making far less money?

Because these days a $80 tag doesnt cut it, its DLC and other monetization that require a installed playerbase.

For example, Total War: Warhammer II is currently CA cashcow because its DLC sells as Total War: Three Kingdoms that outsold TW:W2 at launch just had 3 pay DLCs and they pretty much done with it, the numbers dont lie ... TW:W2 average number of players in the last 30 days 37,497.3 as TW:3K the number is 6,890.4 and its not sustainable to create more DLC for TW:3K because the players arent growing.

Another example Tomb Raider 2013 sold very well except it also cost a lot and Square wasnt going to greenlight a sequel until Microsoft payed for its exclusivity, Titanfall also sold a lot on its launch and then sales collapsed with marketing costs being so high that it was likely a loss for EA in the end.

Lets say this sells 1 million copies on month one, at $80 this means 80 million that sounds a lot ... until you factor costs of having Naughty Dog running for all its development time, then marketing ... 80 millions aint going to cut it, they need more ... a lot more, if this costed then 120 million we are looking at then needing to sell at least 4 million copies before it starts to break even and if word of month makes then from selling 1 million day one and then next month doesnt break 100k sales, this is a problem to reach those goals.

Realistically, even if it earned twice it's cost corporate would still be dissapointed because it's not about just profit, but a stable revenue that raises their stock value, and games are expected and calculated to bring gains way above that. That's why you constantly hear about games "under-performing". While it's good for this turd to take a major hit for developers to reflect upon, up on the white collar level the entire debacle will just get summed up and summarized as unprofitability of non-service single player game model, which can actually have seriously bad consequences as far as gaming investment goes. It's a high profile title sinking without hope after all.

 

[sullynathan]

Realistically, even if it earned twice it's cost corporate would still be dissapointed because it's not about just profit, but a stable revenue that raises their stock value, and games are expected and calculated to bring gains way above that. That's why you constantly hear about games "under-performing". While it's good for this turd to take a major hit for developers to reflect upon, up on the white collar level the entire debacle will just get summed up and summarized as unprofitability of non-service single player game model, which can actually have seriously bad consequences as far as gaming investment goes.

Sony is fully into making Single player games only as their AAA titles, they don't have many (any?) popular multiplayer game out this gen or next gen so far, so they'll be fine.

 

[Matador]

Pretty candid impressions from Larian's publishing director

TLOU2 is basically Spec Ops: The Line, but more miserable and less grim. Which is fine. It does the Tomb Raider thing of pretending gameplay juxtaposes narrative. An extremely good recipe that comes about every 4 years or so.

It's about as dark as a Metro game but has less fun with it. But it's less profound than something like The Road. It's all a bit The Walking Dead. But with the gameplay loop of a Lars Von Trier Uncharted adaptation.

It's a technological marvel and clearly an astronomical feat (it's long, and dense, which is really saying something for a AAA narrative game) but it should have been darker. Not more violent, but darker. It's much more violent than it is dark.

Thematically it's about love and loss but so is everything. It should have been about the courage of hopelessness. You can take it further.

The characters are likable. I liked all of them. They're human insofar as they are bold. But they are intense. All the time. I don't know why writers do this. Non stop intensity. Even during mellow moments. Everybody shits. Even during an apocalypse.

It's a good game. A masterfully crafted game. I would love to see a TLOU2 where people weren't telling them to tone it down - across the board. From gameplay to themes. It feels very Disney in that sense. Not even close to it's cinema brethren.

You can't both publicly fight for video games as art and seriously claim that TLOU2 is dark in any meaningful sense. It's a very violent game and in many ways a very human game, but it's no darker than Tomb Raider. The gore just has good graphics.

If anything I salute ND for just bringing AAA narrative games to the level of any ok TV show. Enemy characters react to being shot, and their friends dying. There's good pacing. Characters are believable. This should be normal but it's not. Games have so far to come.

It says something about games media that they conflate darkness with violence. Darkness is conceptual. Tortuous. It is not violence. Disney films are dark. They are not violent.

Baldur's Gate 3 is already cursed.

 

[Van-d-all]

Pretty candid impressions from Larian's publishing director

He wrote some decent thoughts about violence vs. darkness, but of all people, Larian has probably the worst idea about game tone. DOS2 pinballing between clownish humor and splatter gore is a pretty obvious testament to that.

 

[toro]

 

[toro]

https://www.inverse.com/gaming/last-of-us-3-neil-druckmann-interview-sequel

“As you start wrapping things up, creatively there are fewer and fewer responsibilities and my mind can’t help but think about the next thing. So, yeah, the next thing could be a Part III, the next thing could be some new IP.”

“At a glance, Druckmann’s comments also suggest something about the ending of The Last of Us Part II — not so much what happens, but what doesn’t happen. If Part III is top of mind for Druckmann, this seems to suggest that the Cordyceps infection isn’t eliminated or brought under control by the end of the second game. That’s been pretty well telegraphed by the game’s trailers so far, but it’s pretty clear TLOU 2 isn’t going to have the kind of happily ever after ending that Nathan Drake found at the end of Uncharted 4.”

 

[TheHeroOfTime]

I think I found the inspiration for Abby's visual design...

Spoiler

 

[LESS T_T]

Pretty candid impressions from Larian's publishing director

He wrote some decent thoughts about violence vs. darkness, but of all people, Larian has probably the worst idea about game tone. DOS2 pinballing between clownish humor and splatter gore is a pretty obvious testament to that.

Well fwiw he's publishing director who joined Larian after the release of the original D:OS 2. He seems to give many inputs to the creative side but his job is not about actual creative decisions or work.