Duke Nukem Forever sales lower Take-Two revenue estimates

Duke Nukem Forever may not be the sales success that publisher 2K Games and parent company Take-Two Interactive had expected.

76

Duke Nukem Forever may not be the sales success that publisher 2K Games and parent company Take-Two Interactive had expected. While its eventual release drew a lot of attention, it appears the fanfare hasn't translated into the numbers originally expected. According to Gamasutra, analyst firm Wedbush Morgan lowered its fiscal Q1 estimates for the company thanks to drastically lower sales than originally predicted. Initial estimates predicted sales of 3 million; the company now expects half that.

Offsetting the disappointing sales of Duke Nukem Forever is LA Noire, which is now expected to sell between 3.5 and 4 million copies. Ironically, in spite of Duke's less-than-warm reception, it's more likely to receive a sequel than Team Bondi's troubled crime thriller.

Duke Nukem Forever will also be available on Mac in August. A PC version of LA Noire will be available this Fall.

From The Chatty
  • reply
    July 5, 2011 2:30 PM

    Andrew Yoon posted a new article, Duke Nukem Forever sales lower Take-Two revenue estimates.

    Duke Nukem Forever may not be the sales success that publisher 2K Games and parent company Take-Two Interactive had expected.

    • reply
      July 5, 2011 2:36 PM

      It was probably piracy...

      • reply
        July 5, 2011 2:37 PM

        nah, it was the upside down logo on some promo stuff that confused people.

        • reply
          July 5, 2011 2:50 PM

          I was afraid the Redner Group was going to rape my cat if I didn't like the game so I didn't buy it. He scares me.

      • reply
        July 5, 2011 4:56 PM

        I lol'd.

    • reply
      July 5, 2011 2:39 PM

      It had nothing to do with the quality of the game. There was a concentrated effort by the gaming community to make sure the game did poorly. If it had done well, it would have ruined PC/Console gaming forever.

      • reply
        July 5, 2011 2:48 PM

        marketing team might have helped

      • reply
        July 5, 2011 2:51 PM

        lol

      • reply
        July 5, 2011 2:52 PM

        [deleted]

        • reply
          July 5, 2011 2:54 PM

          What axe were they grinding? Did DNF existing slight them personally somehow?

          • reply
            July 5, 2011 2:56 PM

            Don't try and argue with the DNF defense squad. Obviously anyone who didn't like it is full of shit.

            • reply
              July 5, 2011 3:10 PM

              I can see how some people could get the impression reviewers were handling out 3/10s to look cool, it was the axe grinding part I was curious about as that usually implies some sort of grudge.

              • reply
                July 5, 2011 3:20 PM

                [deleted]

                • reply
                  July 5, 2011 3:25 PM

                  I think some of the reviews were just "hanging with the traffic".

                  Take for example how PC Gamer gave the game 80% and they've had to defend that against criticism by others. People dismiss their review as either being clouded by nostalgia or being paid off somehow.

                  Also note how the first reviews, and the most damning, were from lesser-known sites. Sure, IGN gave it a 5.5 (it didn't "blow them away") but that's not a 3/10 like eurogamer.

                  • reply
                    July 5, 2011 5:08 PM

                    I think it's easy to dismiss PC Gamer's reviews because they are known for highly inflated scores.

          • reply
            July 5, 2011 3:03 PM

            In an industry where a 5/10 usually means the game will randomly segfault on you multiple times a minute, a 3/10 for a mostly stable game is something that raises an eyebrow.

            • reply
              July 5, 2011 3:04 PM

              There was nothing good about DNF.

              • reply
                July 5, 2011 3:07 PM

                Was it playable, from a technical standpoint, on any platform? That's usually enough to get a 7/10 or better.

                • reply
                  July 5, 2011 3:15 PM

                  Why does it deserve a 7 just for being playable? It's a bad game.

                • reply
                  July 5, 2011 9:45 PM

                  perhaps it got 6 for being playable minus 3 for being severely offensive to them on every level

                • reply
                  July 6, 2011 12:43 AM

                  Being playable is 7/10? Jesus.... thank god you don't review games.

          • reply
            July 5, 2011 3:26 PM

            Jeff Gerstmann, June 2006 rant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=698llLo1T94

            Take that, and every other time DNF has been mentioned thereafter. Plenty of thorns in his side. At the same time, I found that I found the most enjoyment from DNF by doing the following:

            1: Approaching it as a "museum piece" of sorts
            2: Playing Duke3D first for the action gameplay mechanics and timing (aside from Duke's running speed not being 120 miles per hour, it feels close).

            It doesn't help that many of these reviewers have 13 years of brewing vitriol rekindled when Gearbox announced last September that they were finishing DNF.

            • reply
              July 5, 2011 3:28 PM

              I've said this before, but I really don't think that Jeff has any axe to grind with DNF. He sounds genuinely frustrated that the game hadn't been released yet and just wanted to get his hands on it.

              Plus, it was Brad that did the review, not Jeff.

            • reply
              July 5, 2011 3:43 PM

              Some people don't like a game you like. Some people hate it. It's not a fucking conspiracy. What you're asking for is a perpetuation of the industry's bullshit ratings systems which is one of the things that needs to change before the medium can grow up.

              Guess what Ebert gave Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. A fucking 0. Guess why? BECAUSE THAT'S HOW HE FELT ABOUT THE FUCKING MOVIE. Giving it anything higher would mean he's a shitty reviewer.

            • reply
              July 5, 2011 4:01 PM

              You're the Gerstmann of DRM.

            • reply
              July 5, 2011 4:11 PM

              If you approach it as "a museum piece," or sorts, then it has failed as a game.

        • reply
          July 5, 2011 3:25 PM

          just like movie reviews? gotta jump on that hate train and be super polarizing.

        • reply
          July 5, 2011 4:11 PM

          the average consumer doesnt view anything outside of ign, gamespot and 1up reviews anyways

      • reply
        July 5, 2011 3:05 PM

        hahahahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHA

      • reply
        July 5, 2011 3:06 PM

        0_o

      • reply
        July 5, 2011 3:07 PM

        Lol, DNF doing well would ruin pc and console games. That's a new one.

      • reply
        July 5, 2011 3:12 PM

        ok then

      • reply
        July 5, 2011 3:14 PM

        ^^^truther

      • reply
        July 5, 2011 3:14 PM

        If Bin Laden was still alive the game would have done better. But DNF came out too late.

      • reply
        July 5, 2011 3:17 PM

        Nice, Crabs.

      • reply
        July 5, 2011 3:24 PM

        [deleted]

      • reply
        July 5, 2011 3:38 PM

        This guy is amazing.

      • reply
        July 5, 2011 3:47 PM

        Hahaha awesome, Crabs.

      • reply
        July 5, 2011 4:03 PM

        You are an epic troll

      • reply
        July 5, 2011 4:10 PM

        Forever, forever-ever, forever-ever?

      • reply
        July 5, 2011 4:10 PM

        Oh, for fuck sakes. No.

      • reply
        July 5, 2011 5:15 PM

        I have to know how would it succeeding ruin pc/console gaming?

      • reply
        July 5, 2011 5:19 PM

        [deleted]

      • reply
        July 5, 2011 9:56 PM

        The amount of people taking Crabs seriously really makes me D:

        • reply
          July 5, 2011 10:27 PM

          Well, I can't speak for the others, but in my defense...there's been a ton of this type of talk going around.

      • reply
        July 5, 2011 10:29 PM

        This guy is my new favorite shacker

      • reply
        July 6, 2011 12:42 AM

        wtf is going on here. lmfao

      • reply
        July 6, 2011 7:33 AM

        You are so funny.

      • reply
        July 6, 2011 7:47 AM

        LEAVE DNF ALOEN!

    • reply
      July 5, 2011 2:46 PM

      This is what happens when you take the better part of a generational gap to develop a game. I just lost interest in the past 15 years since I played DN3D. And a lot of the gaming community now were just toddlers (or not even born) when DN3D was popular. How do you expect them to related to DNF?

      • reply
        July 5, 2011 2:51 PM

        therell probably be 12 years between diablo 2 and diablo 3

        • reply
          July 5, 2011 2:59 PM

          but diablo 3 will be a good game

          • reply
            July 5, 2011 3:08 PM

            QED

          • Ebu legacy 10 years
            reply
            July 5, 2011 3:41 PM

            That remains to be seen.

            We can assume it will be, hope it will be, want it to be, but until we're all playing it we can't know that it will be.

          • reply
            July 6, 2011 12:45 AM

            OWNED

      • reply
        July 5, 2011 3:04 PM

        This is the DNF I wanted to play: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-BPJajW-Sc

        If they had finished that and released it in 2002-2003, it would have been.... great?

        • reply
          July 5, 2011 3:54 PM

          What 3DRealms has said and done over long years just turned out to be a disappointment. It's probably for the better they don't exist anymore, at least not in its earlier form. Gearbox doesn't even have an incentive to revive the franchise as a strong competitor, they can easily keep co-existing as a shallow videogame company and be profitable. For all we know, it has been reinforcing to know where to put your trust and where not.

        • reply
          July 5, 2011 4:34 PM

          Even the waving U.S. Flag looked better than the one in the Gearbox-finished game. Fucking sad.

        • reply
          July 6, 2011 1:20 AM

          It would have been hilarious if they did and people would say the retro look is bold and exciting.

        • reply
          July 6, 2011 10:20 PM

          This is the most bad ass thing I've seen all week D:

      • reply
        July 5, 2011 6:11 PM

        This is how long DNF took to come out.

        When I was in 8th grade, I played Duke3D. When DNF came out, I finished my residency and became board certified. Yes, studying to become a Dr from middle school was faster than DNF's development cycle.

    • reply
      July 5, 2011 2:52 PM

      If you'd have told me 5 years ago that I wasn't going to buy DNF I would have laughed at you. But here I am, having played the demo, thinking... "maybe if I can find it for for a fiver."

      • reply
        July 5, 2011 2:55 PM

        Same. When it resurfaced a few years ago I was excited. Then the shutdown and gearbox thing pretty much ruined it again for me.

      • reply
        July 5, 2011 2:59 PM

        just wait a year and it will be on sale for $10 or less

      • reply
        July 5, 2011 5:00 PM

        Same. Before I played the demo I wasn't overly enthused or hopeful for the game. After playing the demo my mediocre opinion of DNF was further solidified. I wouldn't pay over $15 for the game.

    • reply
      July 5, 2011 2:53 PM

      shocking

    • reply
      July 5, 2011 2:53 PM

      Well, bummer. Better luck next time Duke!

    • reply
      July 5, 2011 2:57 PM

      Whatever, I got to play the game finally and I now have closure. To be 100% honest, unless the game manages to be at the very least on par with modern FPSs, I don't care if we never see another Duke game. DNF was fun, but after playing it, I went and played Crysis 2 and there's just no comparison of DNF to a true, modern FPS shooter.

      • reply
        July 6, 2011 10:31 AM

        Yeah, I'm enjoying it, I'm having fun playing the game and exactly as you said, I get to see the game and have closure. It really would have bothered me if the game never came out. I'm glad to pay for the game and just finally get to play it. And yes parts of it look and and it plays like an old shooter, there are also some excellent ideas in there which are still fun and funny. It's not everything it could have been, but there is still good stuff in there that I'm very glad I saw.

    • reply
      July 5, 2011 3:01 PM

      Any news on modding tools for the PC version or some 360 loving to fix those loading times?

      • reply
        July 5, 2011 3:03 PM

        They said no mod tools.

        • reply
          July 5, 2011 3:22 PM

          Citation?

          I know they haven't said there will be mod tools, but I haven't seen where they've stated that there wouldn't be mod tools.

    • reply
      July 5, 2011 3:07 PM

      The only people who knew about the game were people who know its catastrophic history, and its a $5 game at best.

    • reply
      July 5, 2011 3:08 PM

      SHOCKING!!!!

      • reply
        July 5, 2011 3:10 PM

        The shocking part is that they were expecting 3 million in sales.

    • reply
      July 5, 2011 3:09 PM

      They expect 1.5 million copies to sell? I would be celebrating!

    • reply
      July 5, 2011 3:16 PM

      If they charged a reasonable amount I woulda bought it, but full price? Will wait for a good Steam sale.

    • reply
      July 5, 2011 3:18 PM

      So... Michael Pachter (or his parent company) being a douche?

      "...analyst firm Wedbush Morgan lowered its fiscal Q1 estimates for the company..."

    • reply
      July 5, 2011 3:34 PM

      The core problem with DNF is audience. There are two audiences for DNF:

      1. Older gamers who were aware of DN3D. These people are acutely aware of the history of the game and most of us have made fun of it at some point. DNF had become a laughingstock until the past year. Also, playing DNF as a college kid vs. playing it as a busy middle-aged father are two different things. Even with solid 7/10 reviews it wouldn't have sold well to this group. It would take 9/10 across the board to do that.

      2. Kids who don't know who Duke Nukem is. The game is an anachronism, and works better as nostalgia than as a new IP in the market. (Which is how these kids would see it.) Again, 9/10s and a lot of word of mouth might have saved it, but that wasn't in the cards.

      I think the reviews do reflect a desire on the part of reviewers to really beat up on a game to increase their credibility when they give out 7-9 scores all the time to AAA games. But I don't think that really hurt the game much... I think it was doomed from the start and I was frankly surprised that Gearbox decided to take a chance on it.

      I still hope to play it sometime (maybe on a big Steam sale) because I think there's some core fun to be had in there, but as one of those busy older gamers, I can guarantee that there are at least 5 much better games already on my backlog, so I'll wait and get to it at some point.

      • reply
        July 5, 2011 3:40 PM

        I think #3 would be older gamers who loved DN3D back in the day and snatched up the game both for nostalgia and also for the sheer principle of playing it. This would include dognose and some others on the Shack. For these people the reviews didn't matter. But there's not that many of them so it couldn't save the game at retail.

        The main reason Gearbox took a chance on it, I think, was that it was a solid IP they can now use in the future because they own it, and because the game was close to being done when they bought it. Note how the announcement that they had taken over was less than a year ago. One way or another the game had $20M+ of work already in it that were sunk costs from 3DR.

        What's going to be weird is when DN5 comes out in a few years and it's better (in more mainstream, reviewable ways) than DNF and everyone will say "oh wow, this is what DNF should have been".

        • reply
          July 5, 2011 9:43 PM

          I fall into group 3 and actually enjoyed the game. It is flawed and not a masterpiece but I just don't get the 50% or less review scores. The humor may be a bit dated but so am I so enjoyed it. But not liking the humor is not a reason to demolish the game in a review. I also notice that it's okay to claim that someone who liked the game is biased but if you intimate that a poor review is bias then you're just looking to have your opinion justified. I just want some consistency. Some reviews, the worst of them, seem to miss obvious details. Few offer what I consider valid reasons for such low scores.

          But it's not the first time I've disagreed with the din of reviewers (Too Human, anyone?) and probably will not be the last. I've gotten to where as much as possible I just ignore reviews. I visit sites for previews and other information before release or to hear about games I've not played yet.

    • reply
      July 5, 2011 3:35 PM

      I wonder how many copies it did sell. Also, in lieu of the PC-centric nature of the game, plus the GMG promotion, what percentage were PC copies.

      • reply
        July 5, 2011 3:36 PM

        They estimated 3+ million and expect 1.5 million in sales. Which is still really good for that game, I'd say.

        • reply
          July 5, 2011 3:41 PM

          Yeah but is that 1.5M by the end of the year? Or 1.5M ever? And how many have they sold as of right now? That's what I'm curious about.

          • reply
            July 5, 2011 5:11 PM

            The internet is saying the sales are only half that so far (~700k, with the 360 leading followed by PS3 and then PC) so it's hard to say if they mean by the end of the year, fiscal or otherwise, or lifetime. VGChartz show the PC version is the lowest selling as well, but digital sales still aren't tracked like retail afaik so the overall number could be a tad higher. That's still not quite the bomb I figured it would be.

            The numbers in general aren't reliable, even if Take-Two were to come out and say what they are. We probably still wouldn't know if they meant sell-throughs or just sales to retailers.

    • reply
      July 5, 2011 3:35 PM

      they'll sell a bunch when steam and the other online stores start doing sales

      • reply
        July 5, 2011 3:39 PM

        Ya, when it takes $15 I will consider it.

      • reply
        July 5, 2011 3:39 PM

        I was hoping to see it around $30 during these steam sales. We'll see.

    • reply
      July 5, 2011 4:00 PM

      took crysis months to break sales of 1M. big deal.

      • reply
        July 5, 2011 4:01 PM

        There are a few reasons why the two are different. Crysis was on just one platform, and most people at the time could barely run it.

        • reply
          July 5, 2011 4:05 PM

          Plus it released right next to CoD4 and UT3. Both Epic and Crytek threw a hissy fit that it took them so long to get over 1 million. Epic stopped releasing PC games (excluding Bulletstorm, which I wouldn't count since it's People Can Fly's game, GFWL, and a console port), and Crytek went on the Draconian DRM Bandwagon.

        • reply
          July 5, 2011 4:28 PM

          No way! It was 100% piracy. Ask Crytek. It had nothing to do with the game being platform restricted, brutally avant garde hardware requirements, fuck all for optimization and a laughable joke of a multiplayer experience. It was piracy.

          • reply
            July 5, 2011 4:28 PM

            PC gamers, everyone!

              • reply
                July 5, 2011 4:39 PM

                DERP

                ...

                You cited "brutally avant garde hardware requirements" and "fuck all for optimization." Crysis was classic PC FPS in that regard -- a game that could not be played with settings maxed for years to come. Unfortunately, somewhere along the line PC gamers developed from respectable individuals to giant, whining faggots who both criticize games for not taking advantage of the power a PC has to offer and not being able to run with everything maxed on their 3 year old budget hardware.

                • reply
                  July 5, 2011 4:41 PM

                  Oh, and Crysis was more than playable (not to mention better looking than anything else out there) if you toned the down the settings. Try not playing the game at 1920x1200 with all other settings maxed on your GEFORCE 7800.

                  • reply
                    July 5, 2011 4:51 PM

                    This is truth and anybody who complained about that shit is a fucking moron. Medium ran great on midrange stuff for the time and still looked better than everything else out there.

                  • reply
                    July 5, 2011 5:35 PM

                    What a bizarre apoplectic little creature you are. You're shadowboxing.

                • reply
                  July 5, 2011 4:55 PM

                  As opposed to the console gamers who skipped the "respectable individual stage" and went straight for the whiny bitch stage.

                  • reply
                    July 5, 2011 8:59 PM

                    Because console gamers aren't really "gamers", right?

                    • reply
                      July 6, 2011 8:38 AM

                      Ah - you assume I don't play a console. I have an xbox 360, but the quality of players in multi leaves a lot to be desired. I'm not saying the PC is any different these days as I've had my share of crappy pub servers, but it would be unfair to paint it with a different brush.

                • reply
                  July 5, 2011 5:24 PM

                  [deleted]

                • reply
                  July 5, 2011 6:42 PM

                  Crysis still looks better than DNF and runs better. Comparing DNF to Crysis is not a good idea.

          • reply
            July 5, 2011 4:48 PM

            ^^ knows what's up

          • reply
            July 5, 2011 8:58 PM

            Make a game that can be maxed out on current hardware: OMG NOT TAKING ADVANTAGE OF MY SUPERION 983000!!!!!!

            Make a game that can't be maxed out on current hardware: OMG I CAN'T MAX IT OUT ON MY SUPERION 983000!!!!!!!!


            You really can't win with "hardcore" PC gamers.

            • reply
              July 5, 2011 9:06 PM

              You also can't win by making stupid generalizations that can fit any demographic you want to deride.

              • reply
                July 5, 2011 9:28 PM

                I recognize your name, so you've been around here for awhile, so you can't deny that both of those types of posts were everywhere on the Shack and on other gaming forums when Crysis came out.

                • reply
                  July 5, 2011 10:42 PM

                  No you're right about that. And there's a group of people who'll bitch about anything just for the sake of bitching.

                  But then there are seemingly rational people who throw around this "PC gamer" bullshit as, what? Platform wars?

                  Since the NES (maybe before) all platforms have gotten shitty ports, or games that look awful or run terribly. It's the same bullshit we've put up with for 20 years or more but now there's a group of assholes who turn every complaint (no matter how valid) into a platform superiority contest, and the "PC gamer" bullshit is almost always an example of that.

                • reply
                  July 6, 2011 12:25 AM

                  Have you considered that there were two separate reactions to Crysis? Maybe some people really liked that Crysis was so demanding, while others didn't, maybe the PC gaming community is just very diverse and encompases people of many different tastes. Maybe!

    • reply
      July 5, 2011 4:15 PM

      Did anyone think that this game was actually going to sell well?

    • reply
      July 5, 2011 4:22 PM

      As a long ago Duke 3d fan, the best part of that game was the awesome multiplayer. In all of the reviews I've read, i haven't seen much mention of the DNF multiplayer. I know the singleplayer is crap, but how was/is the multiplayer? Anyone playing it?

      • reply
        July 5, 2011 4:40 PM

        I'm afraid you're wrong. Single player is not crap at all.

        • reply
          July 5, 2011 10:00 PM

          he thinks it is, you think it isn't. You are shooting yourself in the foot here if you are trying to sell him on the MP. He'll just assume you have an inflated view of that too

          • reply
            July 6, 2011 9:17 AM

            Lol. You didn't see the part where he said he hasn't played it.

      • reply
        July 5, 2011 5:26 PM

        Someone else had to buy the game to play with you...

        I kid I kid

    • reply
      July 5, 2011 4:28 PM

      long development, crappy marketing... yeah didn't see this coming

      • reply
        July 5, 2011 4:29 PM

        oh, and let's not forget the raving reviews

        • reply
          July 5, 2011 4:36 PM

          How about uninspired game design and gameplay?

          • reply
            July 5, 2011 5:40 PM

            i never played it, so i wouldn't know. all i know is that for the 3 reasons i listed, i did not purchase it and don't really plan on ever purchasing it until it's on Steam for $5 or less

    • reply
      July 5, 2011 4:39 PM

      Well, I guess making DNF console friendly really paid dividends huh? 2 weapon limt my ass. Way to underestimate console gamers and shooting for the lowest common denominator in the lame hope of maximizing sales. A good game would've taken care of that worry.

      • reply
        July 5, 2011 4:44 PM

        Console gaming has nothing to do with it. There are plenty of major, successful games on the 360 that have more than 2 weapons at a time.

      • reply
        July 5, 2011 5:02 PM

        What a bunch of sour grapes you are. I'm willing to bet the consolitis had nothing to do with this things downfall. There were about 200 hundred other problems that needed to be fixed first before worrying about a 2 weapon limit.

      • reply
        July 5, 2011 9:03 PM

        Or, just maybe, gameplay standards evolved in the years since Duke Nukem 3D's release. That seems much more plausible, imho, than simply crying "consolization".

    • reply
      July 5, 2011 5:06 PM

      What a waste of money this DNF was... What the hell was 2k thinking, Oh I know GearBox will put it's overhyped media on it and it'll sell millions! This game deserves the poor score and sales. On top of that all the crap merchandise was another wtf, while other game developers struggle to get their games to sell this pile of crap gets all this attention for a game that was awful.

      • reply
        July 5, 2011 5:08 PM

        So you played it?

        • reply
          July 5, 2011 8:50 PM

          Saw this earlier today; knew you wouldn't get an answer.

        • reply
          July 6, 2011 8:39 AM

          this is the worst argument i've seen anywhere today. Thanks for filling that quota.

    • reply
      July 5, 2011 7:37 PM

      For a game that has been called vaporware for several years now, selling 1.5 million units still seems quite successful. Rock on Duke.

    • reply
      July 5, 2011 7:39 PM

      It kind of blows my mind how much money they spent on the advertising campaign. I obviously don't have hard numbers but man I saw ads everywhere.

    • reply
      July 5, 2011 9:16 PM

      I blame gibbie and his bathroom tweets.

    • reply
      July 5, 2011 10:25 PM

      For what it's worth, I really enjoyed the single player campaign for Duke Nukem Forever. The story didn't blow my mind and I wasn't expecting to going in, but the action has been excellent and the crass humour was what I was expecting.

      Over the last few weeks of owning the game, I've loaded up a multiplayer game at least once a week. DNF is perfect for me to just jump in to a quick deathmatch game and gib people with an RPG while flying with a jetpack. The response of the shotgun gets a smile put of me every time.

      I don't want to worry about keeping up with the joneses in some modern combat simulator clone by levelling up and getting exclusive access. Sure, DNF has levelling up and stats, but there's nothing to them; no limitations or exclusive weapons.

    • reply
      July 6, 2011 12:28 AM

      Make a crap game and sell it for full price and you get what you deserve. I'm dissapointed that 1.5million people got sucked in.

    • reply
      July 6, 2011 12:46 AM

      Whaaat. No way... I don't believe it.

    • reply
      July 6, 2011 7:14 AM

      At-least I got a mouse pad.

    • reply
      July 6, 2011 7:16 AM

      I knew this game was gonna suck as soon as they actually started showing footage. There is no excuse for the garbage this turned out to be. And I don't feel bad for all the developers who got laid off in the closure of 3DR. If I wasted 13-15 years of time creating a POS, I'd get fired too - why should it be any differeny for these fucktards. Horrible horrible way to ruin a good franchise.

      • reply
        July 6, 2011 7:56 AM

        ...

      • reply
        July 6, 2011 8:41 AM

        don't blame the artists/programmers/designers attached to the project, they are innocent and had nothing to do with the feature creep and bad design decisions. blame the head man himself.

        • reply
          July 6, 2011 10:09 AM

          You mean the ones that were playing wow at work?

        • reply
          July 6, 2011 10:09 AM

          You mean the ones that were playing wow at work?

    • reply
      July 6, 2011 7:48 AM

      Did everybody miss the part where this is all just analyst speculation?

      • reply
        July 6, 2011 8:20 AM

        "Initial estimates predicted sales of 3 million; the company now expects half that."

        I assume 'the company' is Take-Two.

      • reply
        July 6, 2011 4:35 PM

        it looks like it. analysts. what a bunch of overrated idiots.

Hello, Meet Lola