Well… cyberpunk has players. That magnificent Arifact died within days.
I’m honestly flabbergasted that someone would spend so much energy trying to defend one of the biggest flops in recent gaming history (if not the biggest really… even Cyberpunk isn’t as bad. Maybe WC3R). And using it to try and argue that Linux is a viable platform when the one game being used as a example failed so spectacularly.
You keep thinking I’m trying to defend Artifact’s fail on the sales side. I’m not. Cyberpunk’s release was so bad Sony shut it down in their store and started issuing refunds. The game was somewhere between alpha and beta on the release date. CDPR pushed it out so that the exec’s could claim their big fat bonus checks while ***ing on their customers. Don’t bother trying to defend Cyberpunk’s massive F up. They have players due to hype and thirst. 2077 is in the same league as W3 refunded.
Witcher 3 wasn’t too far from 2077 release style. It was broken at release. CDPR took like 3 years to push out a few hundred patches and finish developing Witcher 3. I had Witcher 3 shortly after release. There were so many quests that were broke. 2.5 to 3 years after release the game was drastically different.
To be fair, this is a matter of semantics. The people working on Blizzard North were all reassigned from Diablo III, which was cancelled for many years.
It can be worst, it can be tencents.
No I’m not. You’re trying to defend it as a game when it failed completely at its primary job. Actually being a game. This discussion started when you used the one single biggest failures from Valve as a defense for their ability to make games.
Aldo, I’m not trying to defend cyberpunk… I’m just saying that it failed less than artifact. In no way it is in the same league as WC3R. Because that one failed on the primary goal of a game too: to have people playing it.
That is not how you value a company though. Not at all. One year’s revenue is not indicative of the company’s value on it’s own. It isn’t nothing but you look at things like the value of all assets, cause a company could have $1 in sales but infrastructure/facilities that are capable of producing billions (obviously an exaggeration), and the liabilities of course and the net profit is more important than the revenue. Then you have to look at projections of possible growth of that revenue and why it will grow and certain expenses aren’t included in valuations.
If you had a delivery van but it is just sitting there in your garage, it has $0 revenue but it can be sold or it can be used to create value so a purchaser will look at that. Same thing with a company, in simple terms.
But none if it is a counter argument to Artifact being a flop. It flopped and flopped had despite this. HotS did well, despite going up against a giant. It had tons of players and made tons of revenues over 4 years or so befor Blizzard pulled the plug. Seriously man it’s OK to say Valve made a game no one wanted and no one really played.
There were still plenty of people working g on the original D3 that were moved to Irvine when BN was closed too.