We Happy Few scores a 4/10 on Gamespot; did MS make a mistake?

@tryit: It's kind of impossible to have a discussion with you, sadly.

Of course marketing is important but it's not magic either. Just look at Evolve for a clear example. Or Boss Key.

And you talk as if all the Indies that are getting visibility nowadays are made by a selection of humans breed by the Illuminati since a young age so that one day they can release a game that manages to release along with the big boys. No, these are normal people that just happen to be more talented, business oriented and lucky than most. They get noticed thus getting support from bigger fish. I honestly don't know how you can't grasp something so simple.

And as you usually do, you make assumptions about other people that make look silly but honestly at this point I just don't care. Every user has its perks, that's yours.

actually your view of it is far more tinfoil hat then mine.

MS doesnt need to look at all the games on Steam and select to call up the best one they find. They look and once they find a game they feel they can promote they look into that developer. The best does NOT always trickle up to the top of the hype meeting, that is magic believing bullshit

Once a company like MS gets their hand on them they start the campaign which that marketing push creates the hype.

it really is that simple.

What so many hype fans knew about NMS at the time of its hype was actually NOT that amazing NOT that innovative and I tried to explain to people that many of the things they were gettnig hyped about ALREADY EXISTED AND WHERE SOLID but they refused to believe for the very same reason the guy here said that CyberPunk is a better game then any game I play.

CyberPunk, a game that literally only has a non-game play trailer for it and is not out, is better than all the games he refuses to look at with an open mind.

its similar to music promoters walking into the CBGB and finding an act they like and getting them signed. Doesn't mean that group is the best, it does mean they are good enough.

a lot of it is luck

@tryit: Só we kind of agree.

looks like we do.

that said, I think people are in denial about the affects of Marketing. They seem to think they are immune to it. They also cant distinguish real 'people saying' and an article saying 'some people say'

I will share with you my pre-Woke line of thinking

'too many games to look into, I figure if its good I am sure places like Gamespot will talk a lot about it so those games are fairly risk free. Where as indies are likely a lot of work to find a good title and the good titles likely places like gamespot would write an article about anyway'

all horribly untrue. Its far more random

Probably true, rumors Sunset Overdrive and Recore were picked up by MS second hand.

Also look at the Quantum Break developers working with Sony now.

I don't believe in probably trues with zero proof whatsoever.

1. Quantum Break devs are called Remedy

2. They aren't "working with Sony"... They are working with 501 and are a multiplatform developer now. They went from PC exclusive developer to Xbox exclusive developer to multiplat developer. And I couldn't be happier about that.

Microsoft treated Remedy like complete dirt, didn't allow them to make sequels to Alan Wake or Quantum Break eventhough they wanted them.

Rare is another one of those devs that Microsoft treated like absolute crap for a very long period.

Just because I don't like Microsoft doesn't mean I have to make up stuff like Sunset Overdrive being turned down by Nintendo and Sony and MS getting that second hand.

There is plenty of stuff I can hate Microsoft for, that I don't have to believe in made up stuff.

they are less interested in making the game actually good, more interested in marketing it. which despite the reviews the game appears to still have sold well.

Define "solid well".

sold more than Rising World for example of which does not market.

so depending on how much they spent on Marketing it could be somewhere around 500,000+ copies to turn a profit

LOL, you think a game that is complete and released on 3 platforms sold well if it sells more than an income game that's only available on one platform?

Also, LOL at Riding World doesn't market.

1. ok first off Rising World does not market in that having a &&&^^^ banner add on your store page is not the same thing as having an event at E3 for ^&*( sake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! its not the same , its not remotely the same, it.......... is............ not.............. the........... same. &()) me running in the *))__ there are 7500 games in steam released in 2015. you think each one of those games had equal marketing as an E3 event because they have a spinner video on their &*( page!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! what the actual hell!

2. Answer to your question, yes. where exactly is that number? I dont know. how many did they sell? and keep in mind We Happy Few is expensive game. Rising World for example is only $15 which is about average for an indie.

3. A game does not need to sell massive amounts of copies in order to be successful unless the cost of making the game was extremely high. from an investment standpoint all that matters is did you turn a profit. but why do gamers always end up talking about how to make as much money for a gaming company as possible....anyway...nevermind that question

1. I never said they were the same.

2. We Happy Few was also much cheaper during Kickstarter and early access. So you have no idea how many it sold, yet think it "sold well".

I've been enjoying the game. Its one of the few single player games where I can get caught up in the environment. I do have to save quite frequently because the game locks up every 40 minutes or so. The game is good and not far from being great. It just needs polish and a little more complexity.

1. then never again say something like 'Like Rising World has no marketing' because I swear to god.....

2. I heard it was a top seller for a awhile. so that is not rockstar status but that sounds pretty good dont you think?

interviewer: What exclusives can you tell me about that MS can boast over the competition?

MS: We have Glitches in our games the likes you've never seen!

1. LOL E3 is not the only way to market a game. Just because a game isn't marketed as much, it doesn't mean it isn't marketed at all. No need to be bitter that you got suckered into its marketing. It can happen.

2. Heard where? It just hit its complete release last week, so the US chart hasn't released yet. Japan charts didn't have it in the top 20 and UK, during a slow summer week, had it at 10, behind Overcooked 2 at 8 and Madden 19 at 5. So no, really not "pretty good" sales, particularly for a title that you claim MS is throwing their full marketing muscle behind.

1. you made a joke of 'oh yeah Rising World doesnt market..lol' that is UNACCEPTABLE PERIOD. I will stop talking to you if you do it again. Rising Worlds 'marketing' is literally nothing more than a few videos on their store page. Dont try to make equivalency again between that and something like We Happy Few or this conversation is over, period end of discussion and I dont care if you dont like it or consider it unfair, its a deal breaker. Dont even bring it up, dont talk about it I dont want to hear it. it was a terrible example, period end of story

2. I dont recall but it was the top selling game from my understanding, you have access to the same internet as I do, use it if you are really curious.

1. The only one drawing a comparison is you, so I'm not sure why you're getting mad at me. I'm just stating the fact that, according to your definition, Rising World does, indeed, market their game. Just because the marketing is rather poor, it doesn't make it non-existent, and it's not just "a few videos on their store page". It's funny that the people that campaign so hard against marketing are often the biggest suckers for marketing. You may not like to hear it, but you's really be better off to accept it and move on so you aren't limiting yourself with the belief that good marketing and a good product are not mutually exclusive ideas.

2. Google can't search your imagination (yet). So if you have nothing to base your claim on, we'll just assume it's false.

1. not talking about it not reading it we are now done.

I have far to many times illustrated that the difference is RADICAL so a joke about how Rising World actually does market is not acceptable.

we

are

done

and YES YOU ARE making equivalency between a developer having a video on their store page and that of E3 presentation and I am not having it.

no more

Problem Rising Worlds has it is looks the same as 17,000 other survival/crafting games that have been shat onto Steam. It doesn't stand out in anyway.

and that might be true but that observation is WAY off topic regarding what he and I are talking about although we are done now given my ultimatum

in fact if anything your observation helps MY point

Lack of interest = less creativity?

Well COD must be one of the most creative/innovative games every year then.

MS gave them a stage to show WHF, no different then Sony gave to Sean Murray and NMS. So? I don't deny marketing exists.

It was still the trailers and shown pieces of the game that had many interested at first. But WHF went into early access and fizzled. It improved barely by the time of full release.

EDIT: Having gone back and read much of your banter with others, I don't even know what the fvckin argument is anymore. It reminds of a trip to Jerusalem

There was a Jewish man at the wailing wall fervently bopping his head, praying, sticking pieces of paper in the cracks. When he finished I approached him and said, "excuse me, you were very intense with your prayers. What were they for?"

He replied, "peace in this region."

"Do you feel better?" I asked

"Its like talking to a wall" the Jewish man replied,.

hold on I tick I never said anything about creativity and I never said that there WAS a game that was more creative.

I was illustrating a point that people ASSUME that if there is a better game that they would naturally know about it because it would naturally bubble up the hype meter. I did that by asking him a 'what if' and his response was EXACTLY as I had predicted which was 'if there is I would have known about it'

That is however, NOT how it works.

Hype does NOT mean the higher the hype the better the game. it does not mean that, people think it does but it doesnt.

LOL, sure thing, just run away. That's what people like you do when they can't climb on their high horse and are called on their BS. Enjoy your happy little dream world and feel free to return if you ever wake up.

yes..not having a conversation with someone who keeps trying to make equivalency between a video posted on a early access store front and that of E3 presentation and then pretend like he is not doing that, after illustrating the difference MANY times.

not having it

So go ahead and quote me where I said they were the same. In fact, I actually said they were different and that the marketing for Rising World was rather poor. I wouldn't have even mentioned the game had you not brought it into the conversation and lied about it.

But I thought you were running away?

I said we are done. we are done stop replying to me

I can't promise I'll try, but I'll try to try.

Lmao but nope there's no building or farming which are REQUIREMENTS in open world games lol

for me to consider it yeah.

and if a person complains that the game has nothing to do in it...that might be a hint...

Except you didn't actually prove that point or substantiate your theory. What makes you think I assumed anything? If you can't find a game that matches the criteria, how do you know it exists, or if it does, that I don't know about it?

oh this should be hysterical

and what 'point' as you call it did I 'not proove'?

be specific as if its a term paper

Your second paragraph.

in order for me to 'proove' what your assumptions are I will need you to tell me directly, explicitly and honestly why you think you would 'already know if there was a game just as good'

that is a requirement for moving forward.

Well, then, I guess you're screwed. I bear no responsibility and have no desire to prove your point for you. This lack of information didn't seem to stop you from jumping to conclusions about me. Such as how I would, "ASSUME that if there is a better game that [I} would naturally know about it," whatever you mean by "naturally know", as if I expect it to come in a vision or grow like a weed in my lawn. Or that I think the hype for a game is directly proportional to its quality.

Damn, and I was looking forward to this game.

my position is that I am stating what you 'assume' I can not do that without your cooperation.

There existing or not existing a game better than We Happy Few in Steam Early Access has no bearing at all on this. of which I never claimed that there was and have no idea if there is, I asked my question becuase I knew you were going to answer EXACTLY like you did

so again I ask

how would you know that you would 'already know if there was a game just as good'?

He's here all week folks, try the veal. lol :P

Because I look and I pay attention to multiple sources. Now what makes you think I wouldn't know? And why do you keep changing the goalposts? First it was a game twice as good, then it was a game considerably better, now it's a game just as good that may be in early access.

So what if you anticipated my answer? That doesn't make it untrue.

so you think our so called 'sources' look at all the games on Steam?

what sources do you think do that? because its sounding like you are validating what I said you assume.

your claim by the way it literally outrageously absurd, there are far to many games on Steam

and you assume that the journalist would go thru all of them and let you know which ones are the best.

am I wrong?

Yes. Constantly. And, now would care to answer the questions I asked?

then I ask again.

How do would you know your sources look at all games and let you know about the best options without them looking at all the games?

How do you know such a game does not exist? because of your 'sources'? really? what 'sources' are that good?

understand now you are saying your sources DO NOT cover all games and do NOT let you know which ones are best.

so..how would you know?

The internet exists. At any given time there are millions of people reading and adding information that can be scanned and filtered. One particular source can have their sources who have their sources and so on. While that original source may not have the complete picture, several together can cover a pretty good percentage. The rest can be covered by services using advanced, adaptable heuristic algorithms and actively searching.

There are over 4.54 billion web pages as of 2015 that can be searched and filtered in seconds, why do you think it impossible to wade through thousands of games?

It is impossible to prove something does not exist as not existing means there is no trace of it to exist and be shown. So the onus on you to show that I missed something. Show me this game that is a significantly better version of We Happy Few.

this is exactly what I am saying you assume! but you said I was wrong.

I said 'you assume that the natural course of the hype world the good games will naturally bubble up to the top'

that is saying the same thing...is not not?

that is what I was showing to you that you believe but now you are saying you dont believe that but you do?

So what you want me to 'proove' you have just said. That is how you think it works, that is my 'point'.

my OTHER point is, that is not how it actually works.

and if you like I can give you a concrete example.

People missing out not playing the game. I don't see how people can condemn MS for signing them, as if they were fully responsible for this game when they didn't even publish it.

Nope that is not what I'm saying. Read what I say, not what you wished I said and deleting half the post. And why do you keep misspelling "prove" and put apostrophes around it? Why can you not answer the simple questions I ask?

ok fine I will let you win, you feel its not as I described but rather like the following below (which to me is the same but ok fair enough) and I am telling you it does not work that way.

At any given time there are millions of people reading and adding information that can be scanned and filtered. One particular source can have their sources who have their sources and so on..

There are far too many games and far too many marketing companies involved for it to work that way anymore.

I know of games that are objectively better than other games that are similar and they dont get near the attention. That is not how it always is, I am not suggesting that, I am saying what 'bubbles up' to the top is random as well as what marketing departments pick but I understand you think spending more on marketing doesnt make any difference.

Good. Not sure why you think it's impossible for a game to sell a single copy on Steam unless it has a multimillion dollar advertising campaign behind it, but, whatever.