Homefront Sells 375,000 on Launch Day

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Homefront Sells 375,000 on Launch Day

image

Despite middling reviews, THQ's Homefront sold 375,000 units on launch day and that's enough to make CEO Brian Farrell a very happy camper.

It's not the 5.6 million units that Call of Duty: Black Ops put out on day one, no, but 375,000 units is a pretty respectable sales figure for a brand new IP published by a company not exactly known as a shooter heavyweight. That's especially true given the less-than-thrillsville reviews that accompanied the game's launch, including a 3/5 score at The Escapist and a low-70s aggregate at Metacritic. But while THQ's share price may have taken a pounding in the wake of the game's critical underperformance, Farrell nonetheless nonetheless managed to sound upbeat.

"We are delighted with first day sales for Homefront and are already fulfilling re-orders for the game from multiple retailers," he said.

"Homefront's excellent multiplayer experience, combined with our commitment to dedicated servers, make this a must-have purchase for gamers," added Vice President Danny Bilson. "Due to the strong and growing demand for Homefront's multiplayer, we continue to add dedicated server capacity. We are confident that the large-scale multiplayer maps featuring 32 players, vehicles, infantry and drones, will continue to be a major draw for the huge audience of FPS gamers looking for a new experience over the coming months."

In fact, while Russ Pitts' review of the single-player component of Homefront found much to criticize, John Funk's multiplayer preview was positively glowing, calling it "solid enough to stand with the best of its contemporaries." THQ revealed on Twitter that the demand for dedicated servers "outstripped expectations" and that it will be adding more to meet the demand as soon as possible.

Source: IndustryGamers

Permalink

Homefront's excellent multiplayer experience, combined with our commitment to dedicated servers, make this a must-have purchase for gamers," added Vice President Danny Bilson. "Due to the strong and growing demand for Homefront's multiplayer, we continue to add dedicated server capacity. We are confident that the large-scale multiplayer maps featuring 32 players, vehicles, infantry and drones, will continue to be a major draw for the huge audience of FPS gamers looking for a new experience over the coming months.

So how 'bout a good campaign there, buddy? Oh wait there isn't one, because if there was you wouldn't be bragging about the MP so hard.

TestECull:

Homefront's excellent multiplayer experience, combined with our commitment to dedicated servers, make this a must-have purchase for gamers," added Vice President Danny Bilson. "Due to the strong and growing demand for Homefront's multiplayer, we continue to add dedicated server capacity. We are confident that the large-scale multiplayer maps featuring 32 players, vehicles, infantry and drones, will continue to be a major draw for the huge audience of FPS gamers looking for a new experience over the coming months.

So how 'bout a good campaign there, buddy? Oh wait there isn't one, because if there was you wouldn't be bragging about the MP so hard.

This is why I'm not getting it at the moment. Good that a new studio is taking chances with a new IP, and I'm glad they're seeing some success, but I play shooters primarily for the single-player campaign, and I'm not paying full price for a game that doesn't have one worth it.

I want to try it but I'm not paying full triple-A shooter price for a game unless and until I know a lot more about it. I'm not going to touch it for multi (that's what TF2 is for) and while I'm willing to drop 25 or 30 bucks on a flawed campaign with potential, I'm sure not going in for 60. So I'm waiting.

Maybe not for long, though. Word on the street is that retailers including GameStop and Amazon have already cut the price. Might hit an acceptable price range sooner than expected.

Andy Chalk:
I want to try it but I'm not paying full triple-A shooter price for a game unless and until I know a lot more about it. I'm not going to touch it for multi (that's what TF2 is for) and while I'm willing to drop 25 or 30 bucks on a flawed campaign with potential, I'm sure not going in for 60. So I'm waiting.

Maybe not for long, though. Word on the street is that retailers including GameStop and Amazon have already cut the price. Might hit an acceptable price range sooner than expected.

Amazon got the PS3/360 version for $42. I might get it.

Meh. I might be interested when it gets cheaper. Until then, there´s better options in the market.

well Im glad its doing well, I probably wont get it for awhile but overall I like thq so its good to see a gamble pay off for em

I was thinking of getting this for my PC, anyone know if its worth it MP-wise?

I lost all interest in the game when I learned about the online pass. I don't even rent games with online pass, if I can't get the regular out of the box experience, then I am not interested in the title.

Interesting, since I was just reading a rather un-surprising article about how the game flopped so hard that it dropped THQ's stock value by a signfigant margin.

Makes me wonder which report is actually true, if the game is actually selling well, that surprises me, and makes me wonder what the actual truth is about the value of their company at the moment.

I got stupid and bought the game on concept. I held off just long enough for my friend to give me confirmation that the game wasn't GFW:L, but I didn't give it long enough to get through the reviews.

It's not a horrible game, but it's not a release day purchase. More of a Steam Holiday Sale 14.99 purchase.

Interesting, poor reviews but good sales. Looks like the discrepancy between critics and general audience strikes again. It's starting to feel like the movie industry.

toanewe lorrain

beema:
Interesting, poor reviews but good sales. Looks like the discrepancy between critics and general audience strikes again. It's starting to feel like the movie industry.

toanewe lorrain

what "poor reviews"?

Andy Chalk:

That's especially true given the less-than-thrillsville reviews that accompanied the game's launch, including a 3/5 score at The Escapist and a low-70s aggregate at <a

It saddens me to see how high our standards have become. I remember back when 70 was a solid score, and is a recommended purchase for people into that sort of genre. These days, no one, not even the companies themselves, are satisfied unless they get a 95 aggregate on metacritic.

Honestly, a low 70's is a solid rating. People avoid games in this range because their perception of what's "good" is cluttered with triple AAA blockbuster shooter extravaganzas that get more money thrown at them during production than I could imagine.

I've picked up and enjoyed a lot of games in that range.

nesto:

beema:
Interesting, poor reviews but good sales. Looks like the discrepancy between critics and general audience strikes again. It's starting to feel like the movie industry.

toanewe lorrain

what "poor reviews"?

Andy Chalk:
That's especially true given the less-than-thrillsville reviews that accompanied the game's launch, including a 3/5 score at The Escapist and a low-70s aggregate at Metacritic.

Critical reception is often referred to as a scale of 50-100 or even 70-100. 70% on Metacritic essentially means a shit game.

On topic. I havn't even touched the singleplayer yet (and probably won't ever, which is the same thing I have done with MW2 and Black Ops). The multiplayer is fun enough to last me just as long as any Call of Duty has. Also the Wolverine drone is the most fun I have had in an multiplayer fps (not including TF2) in a very long time.

nesto:

beema:
Interesting, poor reviews but good sales. Looks like the discrepancy between critics and general audience strikes again. It's starting to feel like the movie industry.

toanewe lorrain

what "poor reviews"?

Seriously, I don't get how a lot of people consider a 72 average on Metacritic "poor".

When I first heard about this game, I was excited specifically for the singleplayer. I thought "It's wonderful to finally see a shooter focusing on the singleplayer again!" Now, many months later, they're patting themselves on the back for their multiplayer while the singleplayer is universally laughed at.

Makes me sad...

captcha: 1991 hintati ...(never forget!)

I'm glad it did decently, or at least well enough to bring in a profit. Hopefully this will encourage THQ to polish a better sequel, or a more polished FPS in general. I might look into Homefront when the price drops a bit.

Also...what?

image

beema:
Interesting, poor reviews but good sales. Looks like the discrepancy between critics and general audience strikes again. It's starting to feel like the movie industry.

toanewe lorrain

It seems like the games industry has been moving towards that; I'm getting increasingly nervous when I see over-publicized games since the movie industry has been publicizing crap movies to sell opening day tickets for ages.

EDIT:

Dr. Pepper Unlimited:
I...
Also...what?

image

That's Pi to the Kth power as i -> 1. Duh! :D

SteelStallion:

Andy Chalk:

That's especially true given the less-than-thrillsville reviews that accompanied the game's launch, including a 3/5 score at The Escapist and a low-70s aggregate at <a

It saddens me to see how high our standards have become. I remember back when 70 was a solid score, and is a recommended purchase for people into that sort of genre. These days, no one, not even the companies themselves, are satisfied unless they get a 95 aggregate on metacritic.

Honestly, a low 70's is a solid rating. People avoid games in this range because their perception of what's "good" is cluttered with triple AAA blockbuster shooter extravaganzas that get more money thrown at them during production than I could imagine.

I've picked up and enjoyed a lot of games in that range.

Regardless of what it should mean, a low 70 is generally not a recommendation. Most of us understand the meaning behind that rating, even if it doesn't logically make sense using an older model. Realistically, on Metacritic a 70 is not really a "solid" rating (it's close, but still shows that the game has many issues), to say otherwise would just be arguing semantics.

I'd say that I'll be willing to give it a try for the multiplayer once it's in the low $30 range, but chances are that I'll be busy with Brink by then, so I'll most likely skip over it entirely. $60 is pretty much ridiculous for a game that they've openly admitted has only one real gameplay mode.

I played this at PAX EAST, I was really excited about getting to see how it felt.

Then I felt the crushing reality that this game is CoD. It doesn't even try to play differently, it is literally a carbon copy.

The Rogue Wolf:

TestECull:

Homefront's excellent multiplayer experience, combined with our commitment to dedicated servers, make this a must-have purchase for gamers," added Vice President Danny Bilson. "Due to the strong and growing demand for Homefront's multiplayer, we continue to add dedicated server capacity. We are confident that the large-scale multiplayer maps featuring 32 players, vehicles, infantry and drones, will continue to be a major draw for the huge audience of FPS gamers looking for a new experience over the coming months.

So how 'bout a good campaign there, buddy? Oh wait there isn't one, because if there was you wouldn't be bragging about the MP so hard.

This is why I'm not getting it at the moment. Good that a new studio is taking chances with a new IP, and I'm glad they're seeing some success, but I play shooters primarily for the single-player campaign, and I'm not paying full price for a game that doesn't have one worth it.

Same here, I really wish shooters would go back to having an awesome campaign and stop focusing so much on MP

SteelStallion:

Andy Chalk:

That's especially true given the less-than-thrillsville reviews that accompanied the game's launch, including a 3/5 score at The Escapist and a low-70s aggregate at <a

It saddens me to see how high our standards have become. I remember back when 70 was a solid score, and is a recommended purchase for people into that sort of genre. These days, no one, not even the companies themselves, are satisfied unless they get a 95 aggregate on metacritic.

Honestly, a low 70's is a solid rating. People avoid games in this range because their perception of what's "good" is cluttered with triple AAA blockbuster shooter extravaganzas that get more money thrown at them during production than I could imagine.

I've picked up and enjoyed a lot of games in that range.

True, but sadly you're forgetting about score inflation.
I've been gaming since the 90s, and while there were some games that absolutely deserved 90+ ratings (like WC3:TFT), there were also some really good games that only made it into the 70s due to various flaws, like Silent Hill or Master of Orion. What we have today is an artificial inflation of AAA titles into the 11/10 range, which is usually completely undeserved, which naturally pushes other ratings up as well. While a 70 used to be a mark of a solid game or a game with potential hindered by various bugs and other problems, it is now the mark of a mediocre knock-off with some glaring faults. If you want to reset the scale, subtract 7 from every score in the 90s, 11 from every score in the 80s, and 15 from every score in the 70s to get something you would have an easier time judging. I'm guessing you're one of those old gamer dudes (like me, everything was better 10 years ago damnit!), so I can understand how you arrived at your point.

Therumancer:
Interesting, since I was just reading a rather un-surprising article about how the game flopped so hard that it dropped THQ's stock value by a signfigant margin.

Makes me wonder which report is actually true, if the game is actually selling well, that surprises me, and makes me wonder what the actual truth is about the value of their company at the moment.

Stock took a nosedive due to the mediocre reaction the games been getting. It had nothing to do with sales. THQ had even said it was there 'most pre-ordered game ever'

Dr. Pepper Unlimited:
I'm glad it did decently, or at least well enough to bring in a profit. Hopefully this will encourage THQ to polish a better sequel, or a more polished FPS in general. I might look into Homefront when the price drops a bit.

Also...what?

image

Product of whatever is behind the pi N times. Since whatever-is-behind-the-Pi is not a function which depends on the index, it is simply whatever-is-behind-the-Pi raised to the Nth power. Try typing that and see if it accepts it!

sargeant15:

nesto:

beema:
Interesting, poor reviews but good sales. Looks like the discrepancy between critics and general audience strikes again. It's starting to feel like the movie industry.

toanewe lorrain

what "poor reviews"?

Seriously, I don't get how a lot of people consider a 72 average on Metacritic "poor".

I seriously don't get why people care so much about Metacritic.

I reiterate my claim that this is only a multiplayer shooter, and the retarded single player was put in there to generate buzz and headlines.

Which it did.

Damn, not that I'm contributing, I plan on buying it. Just not right now as there are a lot of titles released lately that I want first.

Sounds like they should be done with it by now so I wonder what they thought of it.

The Rogue Wolf:
This is why I'm not getting it at the moment. Good that a new studio is taking chances with a new IP,

Kaos isn't a new studio, they made the pretty-damn-good Frontlines: Fuel of War, which as far as I could tell was an online-only Ghost Recon sort of FPS crossed with a Battlefield 1942 vibe, with an interesting "frontline" mechanic that pushed up the battle to meet the actual front lines as teams pushed forward/fell back.

So no, this is not a new studio. These are experienced people. I say, THQ dropped the ball in the marketing of this one.

Lost me as a customer when I found out I could beat the SP in less than 5 hours (I beat COD in 4.5 (while looking at the scenery and stuff)).

Ill buy for $10 when steam puts it on sale in 6 months.

beema:
Interesting, poor reviews but good sales. Looks like the discrepancy between critics and general audience strikes again. It's starting to feel like the movie industry.

toanewe lorrain

well, to be fair most main stream audiencess (the ones that dont keep up with news or reviews) only heard that it was a game about Korea invading the US, that sounds fairly new in concept and i have heard from different guys and friends that bought it that they thought it was going to be better (campaign wise) but that MP was amazingly good (which most of that same crown only care about is the MP)

its going to gain steam in a few weeks, once a friend starts playing it and tell people about it, they will probably buy it, and by that time the price will have lowered from the actuall price

The problem is, even though it may be a new IP, it's nothing new or even really inovative. It's not attempting to revolutionise a genre, nor is it trying to revive old experiences (Duke Nukem, Bulletstorm etc), it's just squat firmly in the middle ground.

People will buy it, but it will soon be forgotten. I mean, just look what happened to the MoH reboot...

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here