It's in the top ten most played games on Steam and had sold at least 5 million; even that number is two months old and doesn't include PlayStation. If I were to wager a guess, which you can often extrapolate from the number of reviews on Steam, it's much closer to 10 million, which is how many copies a typical Assassin's Creed or FIFA game will sell. Baldur's Gate 3 is mainstream.
The Witcher 3, to me, made Bethesda games feel dated. The structure of the game is nearly identical, but when you arrive at your quest, it never plays out entirely straight forward, much like the Witcher source material. Cyberpunk does follow along those same lines, even if it never quite hit the highs that Witcher 3 did.
To be fair to your family member, a couple of missions in Cyberpunk is a couple of hours. I remember an extremely late title card in that game. That's more than a fair shake.
Yup, the sample size is out of people who've booted up the game ever. So 13% of players downloaded it, installed it, thought about playing it, and didn't get much further than the menu screen. 7% of players of Fallout: New Vegas never finished the first mission.
Bloodborne (PS4). Only 44.6% of players beat the first boss, Father Gascoigne
He was the second boss for me. The first one I encountered was the Cleric Beast. Then I got so fed up with the frame rate after that I swore off the game, especially since I just found it to be Dark-Souls-but-less. Still, Gascoigne was a hard fight, so it's not surprising that the first major souls-esque game on PS4 had a huge dropoff at a difficulty spike.
The one that always got me is that even predominantly multiplayer games have a very low participation rate in multiplayer. I've heard about 70/30 split from developers in most cases (and I've gotten a peak behind the curtain at a few other games where this trend continues to hold up, within a margin of error), where even if your game has a bad single player mode and focuses on multiplayer, only 30% of the player base will ever go online. I'll bet that's why these games stopped putting in achievements for "win one online multiplayer match", because it was astonishingly low. Far more people finished a single player story in Street Fighter V (which were awful) than those who went online to play multiplayer.
Avera adds another factor: consumers are buying fewer games and spending more time with select franchises, a trend likely to accelerate as the market continues to shift towards live service titles.
Well, given who the layoffs are hitting, perhaps we're done shifting that way and can start to shift back.
The author then goes on to mention game length, and yeah, I agree. Halo and Gears of War used to be 10 hour linear campaigns, and now they're open world. Assassin's Creed games used to be shy of 30 hours, and now they're over 60 hours. Baldur's Gate 3 is as long or longer than Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 put together; quite frankly, if the game was only Act 1, it would have more than enough content to justify its asking price, and it feels a lot like I just played through an entire trilogy rather than a single game.
Gotcha. On its face, $30 expansion content for a strategy game is pretty common though. A friend of mine also pointed out that they probably ought to have been funneling those resources toward Yakuza/Like a Dragon also, since that series has been a workhorse for them lately. Personally, their inability to keep those games at a constant level of production value is one of a few deterrents for me to dive into the series.
Yeah, and the investigation missions in AC1 weren't great, but the assassination missions gave you the freedom to scope out a mission and do it yourself (same goes for Unity, even acknowledging in the dialogue to the player character that it's something the series has been missing), which was a thing that AC2 took away in favor of set piece boss battle moments.
I loved 2 and Brotherhood, but 1 and Unity were the closest this series ever got to delivering on the elevator pitch, especially Unity. I tried Odyssey and had much the same experience as you, except I didn't have the patience to stick with it once I could see where the grind was headed.
The last multiplayer mode for The Last of Us was designed to keep you playing long enough to not trade the game in. This one is aiming to be a game that has no ceiling on how much you play or spend. I'm not convinced we need another live service game that's inevitably going to get shut down and disappear off the face of the earth in just a few years. This definitely sucks for the people losing their livelihoods, but hopefully this is indicative of the live service model no longer making financial sense.