Emil Pagliarulo is a hack who deserved to be sacked years ago. Utterly talentless gobshite who has milked the goodwill from writing the Dark Brotherhood Oblivion questline to death.
I genuinely wonder how much it matters though. From online discussions you’ll see that Baldur’s Gate 3 is beloved by fans and held up as a benchmark for community engagement and listening to player feedback. It won GotY, had a launch far beyond anything the devs expected, and got incredible rave reviews.
But if you look at the top 20 best-selling games of the year, Starfield is #10 despite a lukewarm reception, numerous issues, and being accessible via Xbox Gamepass, while BG3 isn’t even on the list.
I think it really brings into perspective just how small a minority the people who post online about these things are, regardless of platform. Maybe the Gamers don’t know jack about your job, or maybe all their criticisms are 100% right. If it sells millions of copies either way, who cares?
I mean, Call of Duty: Another One is one of the best selling games of the year, despite even casuals lambasting it online. I think devs want to feel like they’re making something people want to play though, rather than feeling like they’re shovelling out garbage for the hogs.
Yeah the developers are themselves just workers that don’t profit no matter how well the game sells. Some might incidentally hold some shares in the company they work for but it’s not big money. They aren’t the board and they aren’t the primary shareholders.
People like being known for having a hand in the Big Game of the Decade. People who worked on Skyrim have that as part of their resume and can point at it and gloat about this crazy thing that is beloved by many.
Conversely an attack on a game they had a hand in developing feels like an attack on their own capabilities — whether or not that has anything to do with it directly.
Dunno if this is the case for wherever you got your sales figures from, but a lot of the places that track best-selling games only track physical releases. Or they might also track digital releases if the publisher provides them to whoever is doing that tracking, but they often don't. BG3 does not have a physical release (yet).
And a quick google seems to back that up. According to Phil Spencer the other day, Starfield has had "over 12 million players". I'm assuming this is a combined figure of sales and people who downloaded it through game pass. So, less than 12 million copies sold, and probably a good deal under that cuz I assume game pass would be a pretty decent chunk of those players reached. If the top result when googling is accurate, BG3 has sold 22+ million copies. Prolly enough to crack that top 20, I'd guess.
If the top result when googling is accurate, BG3 has sold 22+ million copies.
I would not trust that number. Larian just put out an infographic only days ago saying that 1.3M people completed the game. Using achievement data, we can extrapolate that out to somewhere between 7M and 8M copies sold.
Y’know, it’s possible people buy a game to play offline where you don’t get achievements. The numbers Larian put out could also include EA purchases from like, 5 years ago.
Achievement data is a percentage. Since there were no giveaways, PS+, or Game Pass offerings to skew the data, there's no reason to believe that the percentage would change across other platforms or across people playing the game offline. The achievement we're using is the one for beating the game, as is the finite number of 1.3M that Larian offered in their infographic. Yes, that number does include early access purchases. Why wouldn't it? Those are still copies sold, and they're still included in achievement data.
Here’s my source. It’s the latter case, they use digital sales figures from the companies that provide them.
You raise a good point: if Larian aren’t sharing sales figures then it’s not possible to definitively compare them. I don’t think the 22M figure is very credible (as the other commenter said it doesn’t match up with the data we do have regarding player count/copies sold, and came completions) but even 5-7M copies sold sounds like it would place BG3 on the list. There’s enough bleakness in the gaming scene as it is, so I’m glad to hear it might not be quite as bleak as I thought.
In this case, I am almost positive Larian just isn't providing those sales figures. Before I didn't spend more than a minute googling how many copies sold, so 22M may definitely be too high, but I would honestly still be surprised if Starfield outsold BG3 at all, even if 11.5M of Starfield's 12M players were purchases, and not game pass, which is a super generous estimate.
But I have more than a minute now, so let's look at steamdb. There are 4 analytics things that provide owner estimations there. The spread on these estimations is insane, ranging from 5.5M to 27.7M. But the two middle ones estimate sales at 13.3 and 14.9M. Both are higher than the 12M players Starfield has reached through both sales and gamepass. But. These are steam specific numbers for BG3. It also launched on GOG, though I'm sure those numbers are nowhere near steams numbers. More importantly, it also launched on ps5, and who knows how many copies sold there.
Or maybe the achievement extrapolation method is the most accurate and it's between 7 and 8 million copies sold. There is still a very good chance even those lower numbers are beating Starfield in overall sales.
Regardless, this is all some nebulous as fuck guesswork, but I feel like it's more likely than not that BG3 straight up outsold Starfield. And even if it did not, Starfield had years of hype behind it, and Bethesda has been one of the biggest names in gaming for many years now. Larian was a niche studio making niche games (yes, the D:OS series was quite succesful, I would stay say they were niche though) so the fact that they're even in competition with the Bethesda juggernauts these days is quite impressive for them.
The game released on the 19th September, Nominated games had to be released before the 29th September. Golden Joysticks voting was from the 3rd to the 20th October, and the premium DLC that made everyone angry was confirmed on the 24th and then released on the 27th. The timing could absolutely not have fallen more perfectly for MK1.
My take is that they’re trying to sell the game to people who haven’t already purchased CS:1, or who haven’t purchased any DLCs from CS:1. If you’ve already purchased DLC’s, you’ve already served your purpose to the company.
Seems counter intuitive. If that was the case then the true would be of all the Sims games. I bet the majority of buyers will be from CS:1. The market audience is only so big.
I’ve missed the launch week so I’m going to wait for sales on this one. Steam sales have conditioned me to avoid buying games that are not brand new at full price.
Hey to be fair, I have heard several people complain about the gratuitous boob shots. Still happy that it stayed the same, but it’s still a bit iffy by today’s standards no?
MGSV was 8 years ago and had gratuitous boob shots and poorly-reasoned near-nudity and it was relentlessly complained about for that. I’d reason that a majority of the controversy surrounding that game was only related to Quiet.
Yeah, but you realize we don’t apply this logic to other media? I mean Gone With the Wind is pretty racist, but was acceptable for the time, if I go out and buy a DVD of Gone with the wind, it’s going to be the same movie released ages ago, just in some better quality. Same if I look it up on a streaming service or if I buy it on Blu-ray.
I mean if you were remaking Gone With the Wind or Metal Gear Solid then yeah, sure you would probably update elements of it. Kind of like how the modern remake of Birth of a Nation, does not side with the clan, but if I go out and watch the original on a screaming service, it’s still going to be the same fucked up KKK propaganda bullshit.
But for some reason, we feel the need to censor video game re-releases, sometimes not even re-release it, look at Undead and undressed or skullgirls, games that existed for over a decade without controversy, suddenly getting a patch out of nowhere that sensors content to be compatible with today’s sensibilities. Causing fans to be distressed by the fact that the product they paid for is no longer the product they have, and it wasn’t as if you had a new influx of players fully embracing the fact they can now play a version of Skullgirls with weaker Illusions to police brutality or version of Undead and undressed that doesn’t use the word trap.
An argument could also be made that, we cannot get a more Progressive Society if we keep censoring the artwork of the past. After all you can’t know where you’re going if you don’t know where you have been, by pretending that the world is always been this inoffensive Bastion of Tolerance, we actually damage future progress that we could make towards a brighter tomorrow. We should be able to look at old media, and take note of what no longer flies and why these things were problematic.
Because if I’m watching a version of The Rocky Horror Picture Show that doesn’t have the song about being a Sweet Transvestite from transsexual transylvania, then I’m not watching The Rocky Horror Picture Show.
My response was about the “that no one ever complained about” part of your initial comment. That is simply untrue, plenty of people have complained about it since the game was released.
I am also in favor of keeping the original and giving content warnings and relevant info or commentary, as this is the best way to integrate our sometimes troubled past in our future vision.
But I also feel that the word censorship is used very strongly here. The old metal gear solid games are in no way being “undone” or “hidden” by the existence of a new version. I feel that a CRT and a physical controller are also part of the original, is this then also being censored in the new version? Even if it is just a remaster, some decisions will be made to adapt it technically to modern systems, I don’t see why doing the same in terms of some painfully dated content is considered censorship instead of just a new version. Just reducing some of the blatant boob gazing doesn’t retroactively destroy the original Snake Eater in my opinion. But I guess it depends on what you see as a rerelease vs remaster vs remake. If you expect to have the exact original experience that I understand that you don’t want anything changed, but then I also think you’re best of playing the original.
It is interesting that you are telling me to go out and play the original if I want an unchanged version of the game, except that defeats the point of a remaster. A big reason why these remasters are done is simply so that I can play the original game on Modern Hardware without having to go out of my way to track down Legacy Hardware that may be difficult to work fine or go for a very Hefty price, and all without being able to support the company that made the original.
If you censor a product I enjoy in order to get other people in on it, even a little bit, what you are doing is essentially robbing Peter to pay paul, I already liked this game. Why should something I like be taken from me on the off chance that someone who didn’t like it before, might enjoy it now?
Yes a lot of old media is rather dated, but I think we need to have some understanding of things being acceptable for their time, or an understanding that values dissonance is a real thing, and something that was considered Progressive 10 years ago maybe considered offensive now.
Plus, morality is highly subjective, maybe I think having a lot of shots of boobs and asses is great as it creates an environment that strive to be sex positive. Sex positivity being something that is very much a good thing in my own moral compass.
If you are going to sensor new releases of old products, it really should just have a toggle. If you want the original click this button, if you want a version that has been modified to Modern sensibility, push the other button. I feel like that’s the best way to do it. As media preservation is highly important, and we cannot censor the past just because the present disagrees with it.
Sounds like Nintendo wants to go on a litigation spree.
A related patent defines a mechanic that prevents Link from grabbing an object he is on top of using Ultrahand, which also seems rather intuitive. The patent does, however, go into details such as the mechanic also blocking Link from using Ultrahand on objects which have been joined to an object he is on top of.
The word “obvious” comes to mind.
“a game processing method capable of enriching game presentation during a waiting period in which at least part of the game processing is interrupted” and consists of filling up the loading period that ensues after the user inputs their fast travel destination with a sequence in which an image of the starting point’s map transitions into a map of the destination. After this sequence, the character is placed into the virtual space of the destination.
Thankfully, we can appreciate things that are obvious or aren’t novel without granting a society-funded monopoly on them. In fact, both those criteria generally disqualify them from patent, for good reason.
Good point. Don't get me wrong, I am definitely not in support of them getting a patent for it, and I'm against patents in general. I'm just saying I loved it more than I expected, and want to see it more.
Yeah I watched it on Haelian’s stream and he was so anxious in the third phase even though he knew how it was gonna turn out. That fight was absolutely wild.
The only thing that stands out thinking about the game is the dialog choices you get when you play through the game with really low intelligence. I think it gets the best ending.
Oh boy the only issue I have is that I’m going to be unstoppable, Ciri is literally a broken main character nearing her full potential.
Bitch can fucking dimension travel, trained in sword and fight by other witchers and IIRC Yennefer trained her in some sort of sorcery arts as well so it’d be like having an OP mix of Geralt+Yennefer
So I recently devoured the book series and can clarify, she was first trained as a Witcher, then as a sourceress by Yennefer, but after she was teleported into the middle of the desert and tried to use fire as a source of power out of desperation, she gave up all magical abilities as the fire was trying to consumer her. So shes a brilliant swordswoman, has partial Witcher mutation (some of the mutations come from the secret Witcher diet which she was fed at Ker Moren while being trained) and depending on when in the timeline the game takes place she would have incredible reflexes and some interdimensional travel capabilities.
There’s also some really interesting opportunities for storytelling given how Ciri’s background is just soaked in trauma. On that note, I am also curious if they intend to play down the salaciousness for this entry or not. In the books Ciri was definitely curious (and heavily implied to be bi) but remained a virgin, and by the end of the series she was still a minor by modern standards. I want to say she was 16 or so at the end of the last book.
I’m super excited to see where this game goes, because if its worthy of being released after the masterpiece that was The Witcher 3, it’s going to be brilliant
With regards to Ciri’s age, she’s 21 during the main events in The Witcher 3.
At the end of the books she’s 17.
No idea if they’ll play down the salaciousness or not, but given when the game will likely take place that at least won’t be any issues with the main character being a minor.
Hey, anybody remember when MGS 2 came out, and the mass of NA gamers were raging about having to play as Raiden, because he was a … well in modern parlance, a beta cuck soyboy?
Kinda flew over all their heads that Raiden was basically a more realistic reflection of the NA target demo for MGS games, and oh he also goes through legitimate character development, gains maturity and confidence, oh well now, more lately, he’s basically a badass fucking cyberninja.
… Passing the torch off to Ciri fucking entirely makes sense within the world and lore of the Witcher series… and I thought we liked having an attractive gal booty to ogle at in third person?
Passing the torch off to Ciri fucking entirely makes sense within the world and lore of the Witcher serie
It’s also literally what happens in the books. Ciri grows as a person and becomes a badass swordswoman while Geralt eventually swears off taking monster contracts and later actually stops killing monsters. He even goes to donate his sword before getting pulled into one last battle to protect his friends and chosen family
gamesradar.com
Ważne