Helldivers 1 was a minuscule indie game. No one thought 2 was going to be big either.HD2 is a sequel to the conventionally successful GaaS HD1, and its success came as a surprise to everyone.
Last edited:
Helldivers 1 was a minuscule indie game. No one thought 2 was going to be big either.HD2 is a sequel to the conventionally successful GaaS HD1, and its success came as a surprise to everyone.
Absolutely. It took me awhile to get use to the loose and clunky mechanics. They claimed they were try to make him feel like a regular human (which is fair) but I'm not playing games to feel like a clumsy man just winging it in the open wilderness .Thats a good point, it did more with the open world and memorable locations etc. For me it was the controls, melee combat etc that I didnt like, especially after coming from TLOU2 PS5 60fps etc. The graphics, music, sound, voice acting was all great as usual for PS studio game
They are making a single player game with multiplayer elementsBendStudio was so reluctant to make DaysGone2 that it has now thrown all its efforts into GaaS, which is likely to share Concord's fate, at least because of the overheated market for service games.
It seems to me that the numerous narratives about “the studios themselves really wanted ports to PC, and to work on GaaS” can be created by Sony's management, as well as numerous comments from employees (employees sign NDAs, and there may be a clause “not to oppose and support the company's policy”).
Which worked out the core gameplay and the model of post-release support for the game.Helldivers 1 was a minuscule indie game.
In my opinion, the Horde would simply not work in a cooperative.They are making a single player game with multiplayer elements
Ironically course correcting one of their biggest mistakes with the Days Gone, not having an online component. They did try to make it up with the constant weekly challenges.
But you don't just create horde's like that and not give the audience some sort of Co--op / Faction component
In my opinion, the Horde would simply not work in a cooperative.
Players could easily divide the freaks into groups and kill them all, and considering that the game was created for PS4, I doubt that it would have been possible to increase their number.
As for the new game, from the information I have seen, it is GaaS, with a “singles game experience”, something similar was said about RedFall...
Yes, it's not an open-world, players don't have transportation, and hordes, unlike DG, don't walk around locations to drink water or pinch grass on the lawn.Why do you assume the Horde will function the same way in Multiplayer lol..
This game was pitched to Sony as an addition to Days Gone for the multiplayer portion and it was declined. And it turned out pretty well.
What in World War Z was originally pitched to be the multiplayer addition of Days Gone don't you understand?? You keep thinking a multiplayer has to play out exactly like the single player.Yes, it's not an open-world, players don't have transportation, and hordes, unlike DG, don't walk around locations to drink water or pinch grass on the lawn.
World War Z is a development of the ideas of Killing Floor and L4D, it is not like DG.
Astro cost was 60M maxDays Gone wasn't seen as a success for Bend Studio.
120 developers. 8 million lifetime sales.
Good luck Astrobot.
no chance, unless you are including marketing and still doubtful.Astro cost was 60M max
of course, because i tear you apart every time you are making shit up.I have you on ignore for a reason.
- We know based on the Sony leak that Day's Gone generated the same amount as Bloodborne, despite selling far more units. This means the average sale price on Day's Gone was considerably cheaper
- Show me a PS game that got a sequel with worse metacritic, worse sales, and a bigger team
- Don't even sell that well not don't even sold that well. Why is it that foreigners on forums are the most ridiculous
- For marketing purposes they're zombies, stop it
of course, because i tear you apart every time you are making shit up.
1. we had full list of games, where it was shown the average price of games. Days Gone is far from the lowest. stop making argument X thing is better then Y is shit, i don't care what Bloodborne generated. it got no sequel either for that matter
2. Knack? by the way, you sneak in a lot of qualifiers out of nowhere, i just ignore them whatsoever and add games like Infamous 3, Gravity Rush 2 etc etc
3. didn't sell, better?
4. for marketing purposes they were Infected.
you brought Bloodborne not me.It was cheaper than the games you're comparing it to... You bringing up Bloodborne helps my argument not yours.
''is that it sold due to heavy discounting and isn't a prestigious franchise''Yeah, qualifiers are what you use when you're talking about a nuanced topic... You're not good at this.
Days Gone team was small too, they started with just 50 people and worked it for years, it was last year when they had to finish the game, their team was expanded(can't remember from interviews, but something up to 120), but nothing close to industry standard for AAA team and after all, they made AAA game.Knack's development team was tiny as was gravity rush.
All the primary infamous games graded in the 80s, but even that wasn't enough to keep them going.
well, it's an estimation, since the studio has a team of 60 people and it had 3 years of developmentno chance, unless you are including marketing and still doubtful.
interesting, Wukong costed 70M.
In japan, i doubt they earn 100k a year. Even so.well, it's an estimation, since the studio has a team of 60 people and it had 3 years of development
I would be surprised if the game cost more than 20M to make, this is why Nintendo gets those profits- their mario games sell gangbusters and cost peanuts to makewell, it's an estimation, since the studio has a team of 60 people and it had 3 years of development