Duke Nukem Train Wreck Trashes Take-Two

[BlindChance]

I'll need to wait for the final sales numbers to be sure but... I'm betting this is completely backwards.

While LA Noire is a critically well received game (not a darling, but relatively well received) it sold disappointingly. While Duke Nukem Forever has been savaged, I've yet to see any evidence it hasn't sold like gangbusters. (Feel free to correct me, I'd be delighted if I was wrong.) The latter quality (sales) is what should matter to investors, and frankly, I cannot see that Duke has been a sales failure.

 

[AsurasFinest]

The only reason why the share value went down is ebcause of the bad reviews
The sales for Duke will no doubt make up for it
Kinda similar to homefront, shareholders panic about bad reviews and don't actually wait to see the sales, causing the stock to go down

 

[Drakmeire]

Wait, does Duke didn't sell well?
Does this mean that it might be a collector's item in the future like ummm... EVERY OTHER GAME THAT DIDN'T SELL.
I'm surprised that not many people took a risk on Duke, I bought it and sure it's pretty crappy and makes me feel empty inside but it almost feels important just for existing. Kinda like owning an iron maiden, sure it looks awful in you room and makes everything depressing but it's a piece of history nonetheless

 

[MaxwellEdison]

I think anyone pretending that the levels of PC and console game piracy are anywhere close to each other is being disingenuous, but that said, I don't think that releasing LA Noire on PC would have ultimately hurt Take Two. There likely would've been piracy, yes, but there also would've been sales.

LA Noire is a flawed game, but some of its core elements deserve to be built upon. I hope the lukewarm sales don't discourage further exploration into its mechanics.

looks like they'll be getting bought out by EA or Activision after all.

Say hello to GTA milking!

They should have brought LA Noire to the PC as well. Point and click adventures are right up our alley.

Seconded. I really want to play this game, but I'm between consoles at the moment...

then they would have had piracy making sales even worse. great.

What the hell are you talking about?
Sorry, I'm just tired of this comment as being used to act like PC gamers shouldn't get games. Piracy cannot decrease sales. The two options you mention go like this-
1. Don't release on PC. Get no add to sales.
2. Release on PC, which obviously means rampant piracy (facepalm.) Even if only one person didn't pirate it for PC, that's an *added* amount of sales.

It was wrong to assume releasing a game on the PC automatically hurts sales, but like Susan stated, its wrong to assume there is no divide between the piracy rates on consoles and the piracy rates on PC

people shouldn't be surprised that developers are taking focus off pc when even the slightest insult to pc gamers automatically make people have the attitude that they will pirate the game out of some misguided feeling that they're "protesting" which only further encourages AAA developers to shy away from PC-centric development. it's a vicious cycle.

I never said there wasn't a divide. But the easiest way to fix the vicious cycle is to start trusting and helping PC gamers - many people on the internet have suggested methods of preventing piracy without shitting on honest customers.

 

[Vault boy Eddie]

They shoulda just taken DNF out back, built a gallows and hung it by the dick. The only way this game was gonna be a success was if it came with a fellatio/cunnilingus machine for the players to enjoy instead of a game that was thrown together last minute after it had changed a million times over for over a decade.

 

[aaronmcc]

Damn LA Noire was the game I bought on release day in a long time. Was even gonna get Duke Nukem until the reviews totally destroyed it.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

No its not. 50/100 = Average. A disaster would have been like 20-30. People really need to learn how to use the 10/100 score point system properly,

Yeah, no. You're either being disingenuous or you haven't actually read a game review in the past 15 years or so. Anyone who thinks that game reviewers actually use a 1-100 scale when scoring games is seriously deluded, and a 50-ish rating on Metacritic, particularly for a triple-A release like DNF, is absolutely and unarguably an unmitigated disaster.

Then fix your system. Seriously, you just admitted that game scores are hopelessly inflated for Triple A titles. You shouldn't be insulting a user for pointing out something that should be the case. Record of Agarest War got scores in the low sixties but was considered an average game. Oh, so triple A titles have to get more than that? Talk about a bias.

Spoiler

It is the industry's fault that this embarrassment started.

 

[MrSmallz84]

90% LOL nice guess I think it would be a lot lower, I've done both in my time and the XBOX is far more trouble. I think a lot of people come to this for the game stuff and that's all they know about.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

No its not. 50/100 = Average. A disaster would have been like 20-30. People really need to learn how to use the 10/100 score point system properly,

Yeah, no. You're either being disingenuous or you haven't actually read a game review in the past 15 years or so. Anyone who thinks that game reviewers actually use a 1-100 scale when scoring games is seriously deluded, and a 50-ish rating on Metacritic, particularly for a triple-A release like DNF, is absolutely and unarguably an unmitigated disaster.

Yes. I have read a game review within the last 15 years. However I will never support any "reviewer" who uses or supports the 4 point grade system. The 4 point grade system only exists because piss poor reviewers bow down to publisher pressure and thus prove they are not to be trusted.
And anyone who defends a broken system just because "everyone else does it and has for the last 15 years" ensures I will never listen to anything they have to say about anything. Ever.
It is that sort of attitude that allows companies like Kaos (now defunct, wonder why...) to excuse Homefronts half assed, 4 hour solo campaign because "Its what everyone else is doing. [http://www.next-gen.biz/news/kaos-defends-homefront-campaign-length]"
So I guess only good reviewers use the full scale.

So no, 50/100 is average and I say again, people really need to learn how to use the 10/100 point system properly.

I agree, it is embarrassing. I say ditch the 100 point scale to avoid this nonsense.
I personally hold the 5 point scale to be the best.
1-Terrible
2-Bad
3-Average
4-Good
5-Great
To the point and it doesn't give the impression that a perfect score has to be for a perfect game. There is a reason movie reviewers almost universally use it.

 

[Revolutionary]

Wait, does Duke didn't sell well?
Does this mean that it might be a collector's item in the future like ummm... EVERY OTHER GAME THAT DIDN'T SELL.
I'm surprised that not many people took a risk on Duke, I bought it and sure it's pretty crappy and makes me feel empty inside but it almost feels important just for existing. Kinda like owning an iron maiden, sure it looks awful in you room and makes everything depressing but it's a piece of history nonetheless

Yeah it didn't sell well. However that's a relative term used in relation to sales figures of successful. I seriously doubt that DNF will become rare and therefore a collectors item especially seeing as it is Duke Nukem forever.

 

[GeorgW]

I'm actually surprised take 2 has survived this long without getting bought up.
LA Noire is not my kind of game, but I did like DNF [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.291283-Hypnotic-reviews-Duke-Nukem-Forever#11569732] and I bought the Balls of Steel edition, so there's no blame on me!
I think they should be proud of what they sold of LA Noire considering how it's kind of a niche game.
I honestly never thought reviews would have any meaning on DNF's sales, I figured the majority of people would just buy it for teh lulz.

 

[Nazrel]

Wait, does Duke didn't sell well?
Does this mean that it might be a collector's item in the future like ummm... EVERY OTHER GAME THAT DIDN'T SELL.
I'm surprised that not many people took a risk on Duke, I bought it and sure it's pretty crappy and makes me feel empty inside but it almost feels important just for existing. Kinda like owning an iron maiden, sure it looks awful in you room and makes everything depressing but it's a piece of history nonetheless

Yeah it didn't sell well. However that's a relative term used in relation to sales figures of successful. I seriously doubt that DNF will become rare and therefore a collectors item especially seeing as it is Duke Nukem forever.

No, L.A. Noire didn't sell well. Duke Nukem got bad reviews, actual sales are predicted to be around 1.5 to 2 million.

 

[otterhead]

When 899,000 sales in the space of one month is deemed disappointing, then there's something fucked up with the games industry.

I thought I was the only one who noticed this.

It's a really good point. Expect a few more sales over the coming months and maybe some if the game is promoted in stores for Xmas... I hope L.A Noire or at least the general style of gameplay establishes itself as a quality franchise. Ya know right up there with GTA and Red Dead as quality entertainment.

I'm gonna get round to playing Duke too as a nice change from COD and for a laugh.

 

[Sean Strife]

looks like they'll be getting bought out by EA or Activision after all.

Say hello to GTA milking!

They should have brought LA Noire to the PC as well. Point and click adventures are right up our alley.

Seconded. I really want to play this game, but I'm between consoles at the moment...

then they would have had piracy making sales even worse. great.

Because consoles cannot be pirated? Few people would pirate a PC game and wouldn't pirate a console game.

Uhh, bullshit. Console games CAN be pirated. I used to pirate PS1 games back in the day and I have friends who pirate PS2 games at times. I wouldn't be surprised if there's people out there who pirate PS3 and 360 games.

 

[Andy Chalk]

Then fix your system. Seriously, you just admitted that game scores are hopelessly inflated for Triple A titles. You shouldn't be insulting a user for pointing out something that should be the case. Record of Agarest War got scores in the low sixties but was considered an average game. Oh, so triple A titles have to get more than that? Talk about a bias.

It's not "my" system. But it is "the" system, and the fact is that any triple-A game that puts up an aggregate score (from sites that matter) of under 85 is a critical failure. "Lesser" games can get away with it because expectations are lower or because they're aimed at a more specialized audience that will put up with flaws to get a particular type of gaming fix, but big-time, mainstream releases need to score at least in the mid-80s - at least - to be considered a critical success.

Don't act like this is some deep, dark secret. This is the way the system works. And as long as that's the case, insisting that 50/100 is an average, middle-of-the-road review score will get you laughed out of any serious conversation on the matter.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Then fix your system. Seriously, you just admitted that game scores are hopelessly inflated for Triple A titles. You shouldn't be insulting a user for pointing out something that should be the case. Record of Agarest War got scores in the low sixties but was considered an average game. Oh, so triple A titles have to get more than that? Talk about a bias.

It's not "my" system. But it is "the" system, and the fact is that any triple-A game that puts up an aggregate score (from sites that matter) of under 85 is a critical failure. "Lesser" games can get away with it because expectations are lower or because they're aimed at a more specialized audience that will put up with flaws to get a particular type of gaming fix, but big-time, mainstream releases need to score at least in the mid-80s - at least - to be considered a critical success.

Don't act like this is some deep, dark secret. This is the way the system works. And as long as that's the case, insisting that 50/100 is an average, middle-of-the-road review score will get you laughed out of any serious conversation on the matter.

No, it won't. Especially when the discussion is on how broken the system is. It is is your system if you allow that type of thinking to affect how you review a game. Jim Sterling gave DNF a 2/10. You think he gives a fuck about how Triple A titles are perceived? He played a game and then put a numerical value to what he thought about it. Games should not be treated differently based on how big the people behind the game are. That makes it sound like reviewers are scared to go against them.

 

[Deathfish15]

They should have brought LA Noire to the PC as well. Point and click adventures are right up our alley.

Second that. Too many companies undermine the PC, and yet are surprised when games like Witcher 2 or Minecraft sell so much. HELLO?! There's actually a really large community of consumers here to target.

On multiplat games that sell on PC as well, that version makes up for a fifth to a third of it's sales. As minimal as that is, for developers to want to drop 20% of potential sales of their games is just really stupid business decisions.

 

[Snowy Rainbow]

When 899,000 sales in the space of one month is deemed disappointing, then there's something fucked up with the games industry.

Do you know how much it costs to make a video game? I'll give you a hint: millions upon millions of dollars.

 

[Snowy Rainbow]

Then fix your system. Seriously, you just admitted that game scores are hopelessly inflated for Triple A titles. You shouldn't be insulting a user for pointing out something that should be the case. Record of Agarest War got scores in the low sixties but was considered an average game. Oh, so triple A titles have to get more than that? Talk about a bias.

It's not "my" system. But it is "the" system, and the fact is that any triple-A game that puts up an aggregate score (from sites that matter) of under 85 is a critical failure. "Lesser" games can get away with it because expectations are lower or because they're aimed at a more specialized audience that will put up with flaws to get a particular type of gaming fix, but big-time, mainstream releases need to score at least in the mid-80s - at least - to be considered a critical success.

Don't act like this is some deep, dark secret. This is the way the system works. And as long as that's the case, insisting that 50/100 is an average, middle-of-the-road review score will get you laughed out of any serious conversation on the matter.

So you would rather do what you know is flawed because the other guys will laugh at you if you do it the right way?

Maybe it's just me, but I'd take the professional route and not pander to mainstream failings.

 

[sam13lfc]

ABAAAAAAHAHAAHHAHAHAH so glad Duke Nukem's getting slammed by everyone, weird about LA Noire though I thought that would sell big.