No they don't but apparently people here make up their own numbers.
Xbox One X
- Thread starter The Wolf King
- Start date
A guy at Gamefaqs said it sold 250K. So there you go. Also, VG Chartz tells me it sold 57K in its first week in the US. Solid sources. Kidding aside, I think the general consensus is that it didn't do all that well. I don't remember exactly how it did on NPD, but it wasn't impressive -- I think it placed low then disappeared pretty fast. The qualifier is that it doesn't seem like a game with a massive budget, so it might not have required huge sales numbers to to break even.
The other reason MS probably won't invest more Recore or QB is that they are both SP-only titles, the kind of games Phil has made it clear he's disenchanted with and MS is moving away from.
I'd get the really big checkbook, call up Ken Levine, and stay out of the way.
I disagree..Microsoft puts unrealistic expectations on these new games. We could've been at at Lost Odyssey 4 and Alan Wake 3 if they could just get it through their heads that not every new IP is gonna sell like crazy its first time around.
Sometimes you've got to invest in yourself and go beyond to get beyond. You have to look at it case by case..Also, Quantum Break is NOT The Order 1887. Playgrounds version of Fable would've been released already under Lionhead if they didn't try to ride every trend wave that pops up.
Actially, MS has all ready stated that both titles have "long legs. " And we have all but official confirmation that Recore #2 is being made.
I didn't buy an xbox one until last year (the X) because they keep making games that don't appeal to me so of course I'm not going to praise everything. When I play an exclusive I like I'll praise it, I like Ori but I'm not in love with it's difficulty level, it's a beautiful game though just a bit frustrating.
There are Sony games I don't like, GT Sport and the Knacks to start with were all games I couldn't care less about, I also find bloodborne to be a bit overrated. Every game has flaws yes but Sony has been putting out games that are more my speed, story focused with high production values, it's not my fault MS doesn't do that like they used to.
It's not up to me to change with MS, if they want to go in a different direction than they used to that's up to them but it doesn't mean I have to blindly follow. I would LOVE for Crimson Skies and Mech Assault to get new games, hell high quality remakes would be fine with me for now. Those games deserve new entries a hell of a lot more than the three games you mentioned IMO.
Last edited:
Never heard of it but it's cool they are going the extra mile for console owners and adding offline modes.
Sony has made sequels to mediocre games though.
There is a reasonable argument to something like Recore. If they supported it right and gave it more time it could have found an audience. Obviously its hard to get excited about them doing sequels to mediocre games when they spent years not doing that with actual great ones
Certainly not every game needs a sequel but at the same time they need to be able to commit to some even if they don't sell like Halo on day 1. Of course Alan Wake struggled a bit when it came out. They released it on THE SAME DAY AS RED DEAD REDEMPTION! They messed up by not green-lighting the sequel instead of QB
I think the dilemma a lot of people have is Microsoft has released many mediocre games that could’ve been very good. Another 18 months for Ryse and they could’ve added more depth and variety. It had great graphics, setting, story and a decent starting core gameplay.
Quantum Break could’ve been a hit with more game and less movie. Again great graphics, story, characters and core mechanics. Not enough depth or content.
Recore was released unfinished and unpolished. Good core gameplay and idea but was low budget which resulted in an empty world and filler gameplay.
I think all those games have potential to be 8+ metacritic games with the proper budgets and time.
I think Alan Wake's long development time coupled with it being scaled way back from what was originally announced probably killed any hope of MS publishing a sequel. If Remedy had been able to deliver a game in a reasonable amount of time or used the delays to release the original game that was announced things may have ended up differently. You are right though releasing on the same day as RDR was idiotic, I would never go head to head with an open world Rockstar game.
Well if those are your concerns then you don't go back to them for another game. Especially when you are starting from scratch.
We do? I didn't know that.
Well, if they do try again, maybe they'll give it the time it needs. It's always tough to try to recover from a bad first impression, but I suppose they might.
I'm trying to think of other games that had mediocre beginnings and went on to become solid franchises. I'm sure they are out there, but I'm drawing a blank.
Usually if you want a franchise to take off, you make the first game as good as possible. Then you let it go to pot it in the sequels, lol.
With Recore there probably also was an issue with them using Unity. The definitive edition definition was a significant improvement tech-wise which suggests Unity improvements + Armature's own tools/work flow improved which is good news for a sequel if it is indeed in the works.
Not really. We got some PR statements from MS but really the best you can find is Jez Corden saying this
To me if you need to find a new dev for a sequel you might as well just go into the Rare/FASA IP vault and do one of those.
Killzone? Nier? Red Dead (this one feels like cheating)
Best answer? Street Fighter
Well, I mean, Uncharted didn't take off for the stratosphere its first outting. Knack got a sequel (god help us... ) Killzone got a sequel (s). GT started off glorious until Forza came along - that didn't stop Poly from making more.. Mediocre games in fact DO get sequels. Some grow and become something. Others, not so much.. .
So there is a reasonable argument to be made for Ryse, Recore and QB. All have the potential to be great in the Xbox portfolio.
So there is a reasonable argument to be made for Ryse, Recore and QB. All have the potential to be great in the Xbox portfolio.
There's photographs of the actress for Recore one inside the studio in a mo-cap suit. I remember statements alluding to the sequel being made after that. Either way, Recore #2 is coming. I'd bet the farm on it.
Uncharted was a critical success and sold a couple million. Not a good example. GT example doesn't even make sense.
Knack is probably a better example of why not to do this kind of a sequel. They improved it and still nobody cared.
There probably is reasonable arguments for those games the question is are those arguments better than ones you could make for a new IP or one of the IPs Microsoft has in the vault? I don't think so.
Creating a new IP from scratch with how everyone seems to be overly critical of Microsoft games even BEFORE their released is much riskier in my opinion. Look at the response about co OP in SoD2. I mean, C'mon! SoD 1 did fairly well sales wise, not Uber numbers though.
Still though, I'm pretty sure we'll see both new IP'S and at least one return for a sequel at E3.
GT actually does make sense. After Forza released it pretty much took the crown for sim racers. GT even fell below the radar for a little while there. Something like years?
Ah. Yeah, that's far from a confirmation.
Killzone and Nier are good examples. Red Dead isn't really, because that was just Rockstar picking up a license to do their own thing with it. Street Fighter works technically as an example, but it's a 1980s arcade game, so I don't think it translates to today's console environment. Even Nier is kind of a weird instance. It came out in 2010. It wasn't well reviewed, but it became a sort of underground classic. A full seven years passed before there was a sequel, which no one expected.
So, two instances, one of which seems kind of anomalous. Maybe some others we haven't thought of (I see now Marty mentioned Knack.) But still, I think it's few and far between.
We are talking about games whose first outing was mediocre (in both critical reception and sales), and which then went on to become solid franchises. GT doesn't fit.
Knack may. I'm not sure, though. It might have sold reasonably well, despite tanking critically. I'm not sure. I do not have my finger on the pulse of the Knack-o-meter.
I hope Knack 3 isn't a PS5 launch title. God help us.
Everything they do that isn't Halo/Gears/Forza is going to be risky though and yeah their games will be put under the microscope until they start to deliver with some consistency.
Forza being better isn't any reason to not make Gran Turismo though but it would be a reason to make better Gran Turismos. Its also an established series and Sony's biggest ever. It is a comparison that has no relevance.
A game being both received poorly and selling poorly is a reason to not make a sequel. That doesn't mean they can't still make one but it is a legitimate reason.
What Microsoft has gotten flack for in the past is putting out games that maybe don't sell amazing but they give up on despite them being high quality. Nobody demands they make sequels to every game. Nobody else does. Stick with the good ones. Its hard for me to picture Sony putting out Crimson Skies, having it get really high review scores, and then having it disappear forever.
Even with the enhancements it still looks and moves poorly. That said, there are some great ideas and strong gameplay. Execution was way off. You could tell it was made by a small team.
Microsoft is kind of damned if they do damned if they don't when it comes to IP's.
Early this generation everyone was saying that they give up on IP's too quickly. Now they should distance themselves from mediocrity and never look back?
Early this generation everyone was saying that they give up on IP's too quickly. Now they should distance themselves from mediocrity and never look back?
True but i am sure the budget for the enhanced edition wasn't that big and there was only so much they could do. Unity has made ton of improvements under the hood and like i said their own experience with the engine should help them unless they are going the State of Decay 2 way and building the whole thing from scratch on a new engine.
I think those are two groups of people. "Everyone was saying this, and now they're saying that" statements are usually referencing different sets of people.
I think the people who said MS gives up too quickly were mainly Xbox guys who liked the IPs MS was offering. Sunset Overdrive, QB, etc. -- they wanted more and were discouraged by MS seeming to give up on games they liked. Understandable. But that's not the same group of people who are saying that MS should not bother dumping more money into games that had a mediocre first showing, both critically and commercially. JinCa and I are the only ones saying that here (unless I missed someone), and I don't think either of us fall into that first camp.
What I think you're referring to is not hypocrisy but the fact that every choice will have its upsides and downsides, its supporters and its critics.
Good point. That's true.
I guess I just disagree to an extent on your second point. Also I am talking about some Xbox fans.
Microsoft doesn't have an issue with design concepts imo. They lack creative visionaries.
They rarely make anything unique or innovative in terms of gameplay. Guys like Rod Ferguson are second their guys put in a position of studio head.
Last edited: