Control is a marketing disaster, but....

[DynamiteCop 2,090]

4 minutes ago, Remij_ said:

The game is great.  You were wrong... and you're welcome.  

The game is great, I wasn't wrong because I was basing my thoughts on what was shown, and I have nothing to thank you for. 

[Remij 4,719]

Just now, DynamiteCop! said:

The game is great, I wasn't wrong because I was basing my thoughts on what was shown, and I have nothing to thank you for. 

Alright if you say so.

[jehurey 3,299]

"I don't know if Remedy or Sony or both dropped the ball..."

 

"its their best game"

 

yeah, they dropped the ball alright, swoosh straight into the net.

 

You need brilliant marketing.................for bad games.

 

You don't need it for good games.

[DynamiteCop 2,090]

6 minutes ago, jehurey said:

"I don't know if Remedy or Sony or both dropped the ball..."

 

"its their best game"

 

yeah, they dropped the ball alright, swoosh straight into the net.

 

You need brilliant marketing.................for bad games.

 

You don't need it for good games.

Great marketing is essential regardless of what you sell, fringe products more than anything. People are aware of Control, whether they buy it or not has a lot to do with if the marketing has captivated them or not. 

[jehurey 3,299]

1 minute ago, DynamiteCop! said:

Great marketing is essential regardless of what you sell, fringe products more than anything. People are aware of Control, whether they buy it or not has a lot to do with if the marketing has captivated them or not. 

Nah, the game will do fine.

 

What do you think? People who have nice powerful PCs are NOT going to know one of the most cutting-edge graphics games just came out and forget to buy it?

 

And console owners, for that matter, as well?

 

There's no point in you trying to play stupid.

Edited September 3, 2019 by jehurey

[DynamiteCop 2,090]

3 minutes ago, jehurey said:

Nah, the game will do fine.

 

What do you think? People who have nice powerful PCs are NOT going to know one of the most cutting-edge graphics games just came out and forget to buy it?

 

And console owners, for that matter, as well?

 

There's no point in you trying to play stupid.

People with RTX cards are like 3% of existing GPU owners, hardly any kind of sales determinate. Also to presume that the masses buy game based upon graphics alone is retarded, there's got to be a compelling game there too for most people. Most people don't check reviews, most peoples interaction with a game before buying it is marketing materials they've seen. There's a reason marketing costs as much as the game itself or more than it, it's extremely important. 

 

What are you even trying to argue?

[jehurey 3,299]

1 minute ago, DynamiteCop! said:

People with RTX cards are like 3% of existing GPU owners, hardly any kind of sales determinate. Also to presume that the masses buy game based upon graphics alone is retarded, there's got to be a compelling game there too for most people. Most people don't check reviews, most peoples interaction with a game before buying it is marketing materials they've seen. There's a reason marketing costs as much as the game itself or more than it, it's extremely important. 

 

What are you even trying to argue?

And people with non-RTX cards still like pretty AAA-quality games.

 

Did you forget that simple fact?

 

Yup, ya sure did.

[kaz 2,445]

I was the only one who said control owns. rempee and dildo thinking they are relevant somehow. 

[DynamiteCop 2,090]

Just now, jehurey said:

And people with non-RTX cards still like pretty AAA-quality games.

 

Did you forget that simple fact?

 

Yup, ya sure did.

Then they could load up Quantum Break, it looks graphically identical if not better. If that's the concern a game on this engine has been out for 3 1/2 years.

 

 

 

There's been plenty of time, but it seems it's not such a huge concern. 

 

 

[madmaltese★ 2,624]

1 hour ago, DynamiteCop! said:

I don't care what other people think, I don't spend my money or expel my energy on things based upon what you or anyone else thinks. You're a non-factor, the publisher is a non-factor, reviews are a non-factor. 

Yet you care greatly about the pre release marketing......which is the least trust worthy source out of any of those. 

You're just incredibly inconsistent with your views which is why so many ppl here call you out. 

Marketing would be the no.1 thing you shouldn't trust if you don't trust views from ppl who have actually played the game. 

[DynamiteCop 2,090]

1 minute ago, madmaltese said:

Yet you care greatly about the pre release marketing......which is the least trust worthy source out of any of those. 

You're just incredibly inconsistent with your views which is why so many ppl here call you out. 

Marketing would be the no.1 thing you shouldn't trust if you don't trust views from ppl who have actually played the game. 

Everyone should care, everyone does care, it's the entire foundation for what does or does not build up your excitement for a game. 

 

Look at Remij, he was over the moon about Cyberpunk based upon earlier marketing and now look at him, he's unhinged. It's nearly everything. 

[jehurey 3,299]

9 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said:

Then they could load up Quantum Break, it looks graphically identical if not better. If that's the concern a game on this engine has been out for 3 1/2 years.

 

 

 

There's been plenty of time, but it seems it's not such a huge concern. 

 

 

It doesn't, and Control has so much more going on, and is a longer game.

 

And they would've already played QB by now.

 

Its actually amazing just how stupid your answer was. LOL

 

You're basically saying that Microsoft failed to properly market Quantum Break if you think these PC players haven't played it yet in September 2019.

Edited September 3, 2019 by jehurey

[Remij 4,719]

5 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said:

Everyone should care, everyone does care, it's the entire foundation for what does or does not build up your excitement for a game. 

 

Look at Remij, he was over the moon about Cyberpunk based upon earlier marketing and now look at him, he's unhinged. It's nearly everything. 

Unhinged?  I said the game was being downgraded.  It is.... and it's so that their game will work on shitty current gen consoles.  I'm not a fan of them removing or designing the game specifically around first person cutscenes.  I wanted to see the character I've created in cool cinematics.

[Remij 4,719]

10 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said:

Then they could load up Quantum Break, it looks graphically identical if not better. If that's the concern a game on this engine has been out for 3 1/2 years.

 

 

 

There's been plenty of time, but it seems it's not such a huge concern. 

 

 

^funny thing about that pic is that NOTHING there is interactive.  There's not a single object in that pic which has physics.

 

Quantum Break in NO FUCKING WAY looks better than Control.

 

And Controls environments, destruction, and physics take a HUGE SHIT on Quantum Breaks.

 

 

[jehurey 3,299]

3 minutes ago, Remij_ said:

^funny thing about that pic is that NOTHING there is interactive.  There's not a single object in that pic which has physics.

 

Quantum Break in NO FUCKING WAY looks better than Control.

 

And Controls environments, destruction, and physics take a HUGE SHIT on Quantum Breaks.

 

 

I love making Dynocrap COMMIT to stupider and stupider arguments.

 

I'm literally typing, right now, the very tactic that I employ against Dynocrap...........and I will still be able to make him do it tomorrow.

[DynamiteCop 2,090]

3 minutes ago, jehurey said:

It doesn't, and Control has so much more going on, and is a longer game.

 

And they would've already played QB by now.

 

Its actually amazing just how stupid your answer was. LOL

 

You're basically saying that Microsoft failed to properly market Quantum Break if you think these PC players haven't played it.

It's a better looking game with more going on in the environments artistically, more attention to detail, more densely filled, and more polish, that comes on the back of a dramatically higher budget with more time. Control still looks really good but given the scope and finances the corners cut in favor of greater simplicity and scale are obvious; still looks great though.

 

Just now, Remij_ said:

^funny thing about that pic is that NOTHING there is interactive.  There's not a single object in that pic which has physics.

 

Quantum Break in NO FUCKING WAY looks better than Control.

 

And Controls environments, destruction, and physics take a HUGE SHIT on Quantum Breaks.

 

 

Gee do you think? Of course it doesn't have any physics, that scene is completely frozen in time. 

 

Now you're just being dumb, what I just told Jerry is the functioning reality for these games in terms of graphical prowess. 

[jehurey 3,299]

Just now, DynamiteCop! said:

It's a better looking game with more going on in the environments artistically, more attention to detail, more densely filled, and more polish, that comes on the back of a dramatically higher budget with more time. Control still looks really good but given the scope and finances the corners cut in favor of greater simplicity and scale are obvious; still looks great though.

 

No, it isn't.

 

Digital Foundry says otherwise. And it has so many other physics effects going on, AND it features effects that will never be on Quantum Break.

 

Too bad. Just deal with it.

[Remij 4,719]

9 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said:

Gee do you think? Of course it doesn't have any physics, that scene is completely frozen in time. 

 

Now you're just being dumb, what I just told Jerry is the functioning reality for these games in terms of graphical prowess. 

So that changes what I said?  No.. it doesn't.

 

The physics in Quantum Break are laughable in comparison.  Environment and object complexity is incredibly more complex in Control.  Destructibility... almost non existent in Quantum Break.

 

Overall your whole fucking argument is stupid.  People WILL play this game due to it's technical prowess.  One just has to take a look at the word of mouth this game has on forums and in reviews to know that people are talking about it.

 

Remedy showed off enough about the game... enough that Remedy FANS should have known the game was going to be good... and to keep surprises in store.  Other people who needed more convincing (you shouldn't have fallen into this category btw) will get it from reviews and word of mouth.

 

That's exactly what's been happening in the forums.  You weren't sold on the game... because it wasn't a MS exclusive.  I fully 1000% believe that.  If it was, you would have been going on and on about how Quantum Break was great and you were sure that this would be too.

[Remij 4,719]

11 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said:

It's a better looking game with more going on in the environments artistically, more attention to detail, more densely filled, and more polish, that comes on the back of a dramatically higher budget with more time. Control still looks really good but given the scope and finances the corners cut in favor of greater simplicity and scale are obvious; still looks great though.

Holy shit.. you actually think that?   

 

Man...  

 

Control's budget was also ~30 million... not $10mil like you thought...

 

Greater simplicity and scale he says

[kaz 2,445]

you guys bore me to death. i could tech talk you into the ground but im modest