This could very well be the case, and touches on the flaw here. The article doesn't really suggest how much causality is suggested or claimed between the "openness" of a game and how long it's played or how much money it makes.Casual Shinji said:I think The Last of Us being an exclussive has more to do with it not selling as well as other multiplatform games. Odd that this wasn't mentioned in the article, unless I missed it.
Yep, I don't own any recent consoles; if The Last of Us had come out for PC, I probably would've bought it very soon after release.Casual Shinji said:I think The Last of Us being an exclussive has more to do with it not selling as well as other multiplatform games. Odd that this wasn't mentioned in the article, unless I missed it.
This was the first thing that popped in my mind as well. However after looking at VGChartz, it appears the 9 million sales mark for GTA V in the first week was ONLY on PS3, with the 360 getting something over 7 million, so GTA V really made over 16 million sales in the first week globally. While the site can't be trusted 100% as digital sales are not factored in, there's little doubt that GTA made more in the first week than The Last of Us has in its lifetime.Casual Shinji said:I think The Last of Us being an exclussive has more to do with it not selling as well as other multiplatform games. Odd that this wasn't mentioned in the article, unless I missed it.
You make an excellent point regarding the lifespan of the IPs involved. While The Last of Us was a new IP, it was coming from one of Sony's biggest names, Naughty Dog, which definitely helped its marketability. Still, the gameplay is quite different than that in Uncharted (some people find it pretty bad, actually, though I think it worked brilliantly) so the developer's name can only do so much. People have been playing Assassin's Creed, Elder Scrolls, and GTA games for years, and as such they know more or less what to expect from a new entry. No one really knew what to expect from The Last of Us, so some waited for reviews before deciding to buy or not, and depending on what they read, they may have chosen to not get the game.ObsidianJones said:With all due respect, these are not fair comparisons to make.
Assassin's Creed has a fan base stretching from 2007. GTA didn't really make waves until GTA III, and that came out in 2001. And like Shinji pointed out, the only reason I haven't played the Last of Us, even though I desperately want to (not wanted, want), is because it's only on the ps3.
A new IP that was sold only on the last place system of that generation? The numbers they pulled in were staggering when you think of everything that goes along with it. It left everyone hungry and desperate for a sequel. A movie's being produced...
To me, this is like comparing Killer Instinct to Ultimate Marvel vs Capcom 3 and saying that the fighting game genre is dying because of the sales. I'm never going to touch an Xbox One. I want Killer Instinct with every fiber of my being. But unless it gets ported to PC, that isn't happening. That doesn't mean there isn't a want or a place for these games. Just bad marketing decisions that force people to plop down hundreds of dollars got a system they might not be that interested in just for the chance to drop 60 more on a game.
Bingo! If you charge $60, people are going to want their money's worth. A 40-60 hour AAA platformer would probably wear out its welcome after the 15th hour for a lot of people but an open world sandbox game with a lot of choices and content might last a lot longer. If you made a 8-15 hour platformer and charged $20-30 for it though? It could be pretty damn good.They want to get as many hours and days of gameplay out of their $60 as possible, and developers willing to offer them this value are going to earn their dollars.
It seems that 3-Dimensional platformers are all but dead instead. While both of those kinds of platformers are going through a sort-of Renaissance, plain 3D platformers are ridiculously scarce on non-Nintendo systems, and even Nintendo systems' few good (or satisfying) 3D platformers are limited to Mario and Sonic (except for maybe a handful of indie games).odolwa99 said:Platformers are dead...? Please take a bow: Braid, Limbo, Mark of the Ninja, Gunpoint, Rayman Origins, Super Meatboy...
I fail to see anything in this article to suggest any genre is dead. Let's assume every claim in the article is entirely accurate and none of the concerns others have mentioned here are valid. That still means millions of people are paying hundreds of millions of dollars in order to play these "dead" genres for millions of hours. "Not the most popular genre" != "dead".Encaen said:snip
And lets not forget Mario.odolwa99 said:Platformers are dead...? Please take a bow: Braid, Limbo, Mark of the Ninja, Gunpoint, Rayman Origins, Super Meatboy...
Shall I continue?
And that list is without mentioning things that Nintendo has been releasing lately. Probably other companies as well that I'm less familiar with.odolwa99 said:Platformers are dead...? Please take a bow: Braid, Limbo, Mark of the Ninja, Gunpoint, Rayman Origins, Super Meatboy...
Shall I continue?
Hell, even Yahtzee just made a platformer not long ago. It's called Poacher. I highly suggest you give it a try.
Oh yes... That's what immediately went through my mind as I saw the title... How long ago was the space sim declared dead? And what is happening now? Over-dramatisation much?Scy Anide said:And for the article, can we put the "such and such is dead" line to rest? Genres don't die. They're not an endangered species or something that can be hunted into extinction. They might drop off in popularity or shift to indie development, like a lot of platformers have, but they don't just die out, even if some should (I'm looking at you rail shooter Rambo).