Brink has not flopped yet

(SockDog) #221

[QUOTE=nick1021;347770]I spent (wasted a big chunk of it. Not worth 60 bucks, maybe 10-20) so let me laugh at them =/

If they had basic respect for US they wouldn’t trick us with those videos and playing with a 360 controller. They would of finished the game. They would of done the networking correctly. They wouldn’t overhype it.[/QUOTE]

I understand people are pissed and listing the reasons why, as you’ve done, is a perfectly a valid and constructive way to show why. Looking to be purposely hurtful and in the full knowledge you get nothing in return is just a poor reflection on you not anyone else.

(SinDonor) #222

[QUOTE=GLUGLUG;347775]I haven’t spent a dime of my parents $ in 20 years.
I have probably $4k worth of games and DLC for MY 360 ALONE.

All I see from the PC crowd is “If I can’t F**K the gamecode into what I WANT,
then it’s garbage.” “I want this, I want that” “ETQW has this” “RtCW has this”
I can’t think why anyone watching the container city previews could possibly think
that BRINK would play anything like those games. It’s SO obvious.

You are not ENTITLED TO ANYTHING just cause you play on PC.
Everything comes down to money these days and PC players just don’t want to spend it.
You’ll be lucky to even have PC games come out 5 years from now.[/QUOTE]

You do have a point there. Most big game companies are seeing the $$$ with console games. At first, many companies liked to stay PC since they didn’t have to pay the royalty fees to M$/Sony/Nintendo. But then, once the world embraced console gaming over PC gaming, most game companies switched over to console-priority. Even with the $10/game royalty (which, we, the consumers, are covering), most games that are released on console outsell their PC counterparts 10 to 1.

PCs are still the machine of choice for certain genres, like flight sims, MMORPGs, and RTS games, other genres like FPS and racing games, which DO look and should play much better than on consoles just aren’t profitable. You know what else isn’t that profitable? User-made mods/levels/etc.

Money talks… I wonder if Brink would have anymore sales on PC if it was wide open to mod? Right now, the sales figures for the PC are around 70k units.

(R_Shackelford) #223

Um… you mean like Stopwatch?

(DarkangelUK) #224

[QUOTE=SinDonor;347773]Yeah, the sales figure for the PS3 and PC pale in comparison:

http://gamrreview.vgchartz.com/browse.php?name=brink

360 = 0.65m
PS3 = 0.29m
PC = 0.07M (OUCH!)

Total = 1.01m

Since the average revenue generated is around $20 per game for the publishers+devs, I’d say that Brink has made them at least $20m so far. As long as it cost less than $20m to create and market, that’s good.[/QUOTE]

The PC numbers aren’t accurate, those are purely store sales and don’t count digital sales from Steam or Drect2Drive.

As for Glug… obvious troll is obvious. Me being from the PC master race automatically makes me right and you wrong.

(GLUGLUG) #225

sheep humpers are NOT master race, sorry

(OnceWasGreat) #226

[QUOTE=Je T´aime;347753]

But i would also add the fun factor, whats the fun to attack in Reactor/shipyard/resort etc when the defense have a good team.
Its kinda impossible to get the objectives done with a good defense.

The current game modes are kinda fail for the masses and they can be really frustrating and not fun at all, People are forced to attack or just to defend.

I don´t get the point of some gamemodes look at Refuel for example

1st objective you need to plant the bomb.
2nd objective escort the briefcase thing into the airplane.
3rd Hack the controls thing in a diferent room.
4th Escort the briefcase into the airplane again
5th Repair the controls in the hangar as engeneer.

And the enemy might defuse you bomb/ dehack the hacking / lock down several rooms / return the briefcase etc.

Whats the chances to complete 5 objectives having decent teams in both sides.

…

We need new gamemodes where both teams have to attack and defend and not 10 objectives make it more linear more enjoyable instead, you can argue that brink is ment to play schtop or whatever is called but the majority of pub servers dont run that.[/QUOTE]

this is the main issue the game has in public servers. I totally agree. But i also think that these problems can be adressed in a quite simple way:

  1. change spawn timers for defense (maybe 25 sec against 15 for attack team);
  2. make it possible only to defuse and not to de-hack, so the attacking team can build up the obj in waves instead of starting every time from the beginning (that is the worse part!).

my2 cents.

PS. Just finished a gaming session (europe here, its midnight) and only a bunch of servers were full of players (no bots) :(. I had a fun gaming session but, hey, the above suggestion are kindly required. :slight_smile:

(nick1021) #227

So…I should spend loads of money on dlc instead of having the option of having infinite choices of gameplay for free?

(GLUGLUG) #228

…:confused:…Yes, that’s how you support a company, by purchasing their products.
Not bastardizing them in your basement.

(St NickelStew) #229

[QUOTE=SinDonor;347773]Yeah, the sales figure for the PS3 and PC pale in comparison:

http://gamrreview.vgchartz.com/browse.php?name=brink

360 = 0.65m
PS3 = 0.29m
PC = 0.07M (OUCH!)

Total = 1.01m

Since the average revenue generated is around $20 per game for the publishers+devs, I’d say that Brink has made them at least $20m so far. As long as it cost less than $20m to create and market, that’s good.[/QUOTE]

As Darkangel noted, the PC numbers are probably way-low. This is encouraging news, really. I would guess that for a AAA title Brink’s cost would be at the low end of the scale, so SD/Bethesda stand a good chance of selling enough units to warrant Brink2.

Hooray!!

(nick1021) #230

WHAT?! YOU’RE GOING TO HAVE TO SPEAK UP! I can’t hear you over my free games, mod support, free dlc and updates, better graphics, server browser, faster support, more players, the lack of 12 year olds, text and voice support, more memory, better controls and no motion crap gimmicks!

(nick1021) #231

[QUOTE=GLUGLUG;347789]…:confused:…Yes, that’s how you support a company, by purchasing their products.
Not bastardizing them in your basement.[/QUOTE]

Are you ****ting me? Go look at the most successful games on pc. TF2 made the god damn game free. But before that they charged it for 10 bucks, vanity items (which they make money off of right now) and they gave out TONS of stuff for free. And due to their generosity they sold more games and made more money.

CS gave people mod support. Over 10 years 12k people are STILL playing it.

(DarkangelUK) #232

[QUOTE=GLUGLUG;347789]…:confused:…Yes, that’s how you support a company, by purchasing their products.
Not bastardizing them in your basement.[/QUOTE]

You do know it’s the devs that have decided to release these games and PC updates for free, and not the players? In fact games like LoTR:Online have made MORE money going free-2-play and charging for micro transactions than they did just charging outright for the game. You think they release this stuff out of the goodness of their heart?

(St NickelStew) #233

[QUOTE=nick1021;347776]Can’t find exactly how much brink cost to make but from multiple sources an AAA title game costs 20mil to 100mil.
[/QUOTE]

That sounds about right to me. Red Dead Redemption estimated cost was $70 mil. Dragon Age: Origins cost $127 mil or more.

(nick1021) #234

So brink either barely broke even, barely made profit or barely lost money. Either way, not successful.

(St NickelStew) #235

Um, we are only 6 weeks into the life of the product. Breakeven is doing better than average in the gaming industry. And if SD/Bethesda have truly recovered their development costs, then additional future sales (which are clearly still occurring) will be pure gravy. Though the start was admittedly rocky, they are doing just fine and should continue to increase the profitability their efforts.

(AmishWarMachine) #236

Depends on how you rate success, nick1021.

If you stop success at Brink alone, you’re right, breaking even <> success.

If success includes establishing a foothold, no matter how small, in the FPS market with a new IP, and opening the door to expansions and future iterations and enhancements, breaking even can certainly be considered a success.

Time will tell whether or not Brink was successful in the long run, even if one’s estimation is that it hasn’t been to this point.

(fzl) #237

R.I.P. Brink!

Welcome good old ETQW!!!

Big Thanx to faildamage!

the_real_fzl:confused:

(nick1021) #238

[QUOTE=AmishWarMachine;347804]Depends on how you rate success, nick1021.

If you stop success at Brink alone, you’re right, breaking even <> success.

If success includes establishing a foothold, no matter how small, in the FPS market with a new IP, and opening the door to expansions and future iterations and enhancements, breaking even can certainly be considered a success.

Time will tell whether or not Brink was successful in the long run, even if one’s estimation is that it hasn’t been to this point.[/QUOTE]

I don’t know about you, but I don’t buy a sequel to a game that failed. And I’m sure that reasoning applies to a huge majority of consumers. If anything they demolished their fanbase that they made with quake wars and wolfenstien.

(SinDonor) #239

Ah yes, not only are you an English master, but you are an economics guru as well!

What a maroon!

If any company can break even with a brand new IP, it’s a success. Not a blockbuster AAA mega success, but a success nonetheless.

(SinDonor) #240

SWEET! Maybe by then you’ll stop wasting your time trolling these boards.