you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 10 points 2 years ago* (3 children)

It’s the exact same thing actually. Their claim was:

Good games will sell regardless of what’s out

But that’s just not true, and game studios of all sizes know that. The risk aversion of these companies exist because of the reality of the situation.

It also has nothing to do with a studios confidence in their game. The quality of a game is light years away from being the sole objective indicator of a games sales. The Outer Wilds is objectively one of the greatest games ever made and has no real peers in what it does. And yet it didn’t make nearly the sales numbers as the latest asset flipped Call of Duty game.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    The Outer Wilds was a first game from an indie studio. On this basis alone it was practically guaranteed to not get the success it deserved. And it does deserve a ton of it.

    Conversely, call of duty is literally one of the most notorious franchises in the entire industry, and pretty much sells on its name alone.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago*

    A good observation. Hence why one of those games can afford to launch during a crowded window despite its lack of quality, and the other, despite their confidence in their work, and the high quality of their work, could not. You’re starting to get it now.

  • source
  • parent