Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Gears Sells a Million 82

Posted by Zonk
from the that's-a-lot-of-fenix dept.
Gamespot reports that Gears of War has sold a million units in two weeks. This has made it the fastest-selling 360 game to date, beating out GRAW and CoD2 for the honor. From the article: "Microsoft dropped some other statistics as well, saying 'more than 850,000 unique gamers have engaged in 10 million [Gears of War] gameplay sessions while unlocking an impressive 7 million achievements.' Since the game went on sale November 7, the rate of Xbox Live Gold subscriptions, which are required for online play, has increased more than 50 percent. According to Microsoft, the impressive subscription rate is because more than 85 percent of Gears players play one of the game's various multiplayer modes, which include full campaign co-op." The GamerScore Blog wants you to know that rumours you have heard about Gears for Windows were mistaken. For the time being, anyway.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gears Sells a Million

Comments Filter:
  • Well, I'd just like to know what one must do to achieve anything in Gears. I mean, if it's simple stuff like powering-on your 360 without the controller, or entering your name correctly, I'll start to be impressed. Conversly, if they start off with: beat the game without being hit, or use only using the chainsaw, then I'm no longer impressed, but embarassed for gamers as a whole.


    Oh, and no. I haven't even seen the game played.

    • by Senobyzal (826207)
      You get achievements for completing each act of the game at each of the three levels of difficulty, so it's not quite logging in to get one, but you only have to play for an hour or so to start getting them. There's a whole other set of them for multiplayer as well.
      • by iainl (136759)
        Do you get the Casual achievement when you complete the level on Hardcore, or do you need to go back and play the game on the easy setting to get the extra points?

        I'm honestly in no rush to get the game, as I already had two games with the machine when I bought it a little over a month ago, got a third last week, and a fourth (Oblivion, so that should take me a fair while!) shipped this morning.

        But most people I know with the game are going straight in on Hardcore, and if they get two achievements per level
        • by Saige (53303)
          Yes, they set it up so that getting an achievement on one difficulty level unlocks the ones for the easier levels - a nice change from most games that require you to play through on each difficulty level.
    • by sho222 (834270) on Wednesday November 22, 2006 @05:45PM (#16957740)
      7 million achievements is impressive. With 850k unique users, that is an average of ~8.25 achievements per user. The game has 49 achievements possible. Beating the game yields 7 achievements: one for each of the 5 acts, one for the prison breakout (the closest thing to getting an achievement by turning on the console), and one for completing the game. That means that on average, each player has played and completed the game. I realize that the stats are slightly skewed by those players that play all the time and have achieved 40+ achievements. I consider myself a pretty average gamer (for a 360 owner) and I have 11 achievements. But, wow, 7 million achievements for 850k users is really impressive -> almost everybody who plays this game plays it until the end. Granted, this game is fairly short (7-10 hrs?), but these stats highlight that the gameplay in Gears is very compelling. Well done CliffyB.

      On a side note, was CliffyB famous before Gears of War? I had never heard of him. His wikipedia page [wikipedia.org] doesn't make him sound like a game designer god by any means.
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Thraxen (455388)
        Unreal Tournament is a pretty big name title and that, as the Wikipedia page states, is where he was made famous.
        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by KDR_11k (778916)
          What? People don't remember the name Cliff Bleszinski from the shareware era? Epic Megagames? Where have you people been?
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            I think it's more a question of when were you people born. I can imagine that the average gamer now will look at you funny when you mention 'shareware'
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by LordKronos (470910)
        He was involved in Unreal Tournament and was one of the more vocal web presences for the company(Epic). He did a lot of "blogging" (before it was called blogging) about the early versions of UT as they were being developed and did quite a bit of online interaction with the mod community.
    • by Threni (635302)
      > Oh, and no. I haven't even seen the game played.

      I'd not heard of it. I clicked on a few screenshots, but I couldn't really see anything. This is a black and white game, right? Played in the dark?
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      They aren't easy, and they're not impossible. You get one for each act (and another for full game completion) on each difficulty. On casual difficulty, they are only worth 10 points. More on the harder difficulties. There is one for 100 Live kills for each weapon (that would take some work).

      Most notably, there is one called "A Series Of Tubes" for hosting enough games, and Ted Stevens is credited for the inspiration in the ending credits. Also Ted Nugent ("The Nuge" Torque Bow 100 kills).

      Anyway, here i

  • by HappySqurriel (1010623) on Wednesday November 22, 2006 @05:32PM (#16957510)
    According to Microsoft, the impressive subscription rate is because more than 85 percent of Gears players play one of the game's various multiplayer modes, which include full campaign co-op.

    Is it surprising that a game that is meant to apeal to hard-core gamers sells to people who like to play a game in the way that hard-core gamers like to play their games?

    I may be wrong, but I think it would be more impressive to hear that 50% (or more) of people who got the free XBox live subscription with their XBox 360 used it and of those 50% (or more) continued paying for the service when their subscription ended.
    • by MBraynard (653724)
      It's not really a 'hard-core' gamer game - it's not a mom game like Bejeweled, but somewhere in between.

      On the easy setting (maybe it's called 'casual'?), the game is quiet easy.

      • The best way I can describe it is the perfect marriage between Halo and Resident evil 4. It's not technically a first person shooter which I think is a good thing, since it will bring in non-fps fans while not alienating those who do like FPS's. Top notch production quality for a game too, IMO.
      • Male Bathroom Ettiquite. Sucked. Boring.

        Bill and John. Pretty amusing actually. Unique, enjoyable. A little confusing. But fun.

      • It is fairly easy on casual. I pretty much walked through it.

        But now I am playing on Insane, and it is VERY tough. It is also a lot more fun. On Insane it ceases to be some crappy shooter, and turns into a very cool cover shooter.
  • by The Living Fractal (162153) <banantarr&hotmail,com> on Wednesday November 22, 2006 @05:33PM (#16957522) Homepage
    A song which was attached to a commerical which grabbed the attention of millions and made them get shivers down their spine from the sheer amount of awesome. Ten karma points to whoever replies to this with the name of the song and the artist.

    The rest is history.

    TLF
    • by Pojut (1027544) on Wednesday November 22, 2006 @05:36PM (#16957592) Homepage
      Mad World, from Gary Jules
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Senobyzal (826207)
      Mad World by Tears for Fears (originally); I forget who covered it in this instance.
    • by kfg (145172)
      Ten karma points to whoever replies to this with the name of the song and the artist.

      + or - ?

      KFG
    • by ClamIAm (926466)
      Or, more accurately, millions shivered at Microsoft's shameless use of a song recently featured in a science fiction film, therefore ensuring that the eff-pee-ess d00dz would post comments like this on the Internet.
      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        OMGZ! M1CR()5OFT uZED A SONG IN A COMMERICAL THAT sumBOdY! ELSE! WROTEZ! Nobody elze ever d0z that ever!!!!!!!1eleven Not APPLE, NOT IBM, NOT ANYBODY BUT MICROSLOTH!@!

        • How is that Offtopic? I could possibly see a Troll or Flamebait for that(although it's Funny to me) but how the hell is that Offtopic?
    • Indeed, the image of a shittily motion-captured space marine running down a corridor sent shivers down my spine.
    • The song they use in the commercial is horrible.

      I've talked to many people about it, and they all agree it sounds horrible. Apparently someone put together a site with different music dubbed in and every track they tried sounded better.
    • by cluke (30394)
      Well, I dunno where you come from, but after Donnie Darko that song got so much radio airplay in the UK and everyone got so thoroughly sick of it that the use of it for the GoW commercial seemed like a hopeless cliche.
    • The sheer amount of gayness in your post is sending shivers down my spine.

      Gears of War might be a fun if amazingly overrated game, but that trailer - which was very cool - and that song - which is very cool - have combined to totally negate each others coolness and create a coolness void, where all that you're left with is something that reeks of trying too hard.

      Hell, the Tears for Fears version would have worked better than that. Someone should totally dub that.
  • Any one mind doing me a favor?

    What is so great about gears?
    I admit, Ihave done no homework on this, and thus am simply relying on the /. collective intelegence.

    It is just another FPS, isn't it?
    Is there somethign fantasticly inovative about it?
    somethign horribly fun?
    Somethign original?

    please, I am curious. (and lazy)
    • by Pojut (1027544) on Wednesday November 22, 2006 @06:10PM (#16958088) Homepage
      well to start, it isn't an FPS. It's a third person shooter.

      I can't tell you why OTHERS find it so fun, so I will relay my own personal experiences with it.

      To start, the way that the cover system is implemented gives it a greateer sense of realism...after all, you wouldn't just go standing behind a wall in a warzone...you would have your back to it and pop out...you would transfer from one cover to another, not just simply jog over to the next one...I suppose what I am trying to say is the strategies required to play the game succesfully are very different from your typical shooter in that if you do not utilize cover correctly, you WILL die.

      Generally, I find graphics take a seat to gameplay and story, but in this case they help a LOT. They are done in such a grity, grimey way that when you finish playing you feel the need to wash your hands. It is a dirty, dirty game.

      The reloading system adds alot too. When you mess up a reload and you see your char on screen cussing and getting slightly frantic...you start getting the same way. In the middle of a firefight when you are flanked/pinned down, being stuck with a jammed weapon (just like in real life) is one of the most heart-attack inducing moments you can imagine. There is a great sense of satisfaction and accomplishment with each enemy you take down. While some may cry foul about the AI, on the harder difficulties (not unlike Halo) things start getting really tough.

      The char's are developed JUST ENOUGH for you to care about them, which is perfect considering it is supposed to be a trilogy. The first one sets it up, the second gives the backstory, the third concludes everything.

      All things combined, it is plain fun. It isn't particularly revolutionary, it won't change HOW games are played or anything...but it will most likely change how much effort people put into games. I lack the vocabulary to describe to you how excited I am for the second and third installments.
      • by Pojut (1027544)
        as a side note, for every major system I have one game that I tell people they MUST buy.

        SNES - Secret of Mana
        Genesis - Kid Chameleon
        N64 - Goldeneye
        Dreamcast - Time Stalkers
        Saturn - Die Hard Arcade
        Xbox - Scrapland
        PS2 - God of War
        Gamecube - Metroid Prime
        Xbox 360 - Gears of War
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by mozumder (178398)
        I hate the state-based motion controls on Gears, though. You know, when you're behind the wall, the controls are of a different state than when running freely. It really does distract from an active firefight. They should have left it free-flowing while adapting to walls automatcially. Instead of pressing a button to get into 'cover' state when approaching a wall, then pressing another button to jump over the wall or dive or what not, they should have just kept it as automatic cover whenever a person ap
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by jchenx (267053)

          I hate the state-based motion controls on Gears, though. You know, when you're behind the wall, the controls are of a different state than when running freely. It really does distract from an active firefight. They should have left it free-flowing while adapting to walls automatcially. Instead of pressing a button to get into 'cover' state when approaching a wall, then pressing another button to jump over the wall or dive or what not, they should have just kept it as automatic cover whenever a person approa

        • Hell yea. I'd love to see this game with COD2 controls! I'd probably enjoy it more. As an aside, COD3 has been sorta a let down, but it's ok. Civil War, which is what activision worked on instead of COD3, is a pretty fun game as well.
        • I hate the state-based motion controls on Gears, though. You know, when you're behind the wall, the controls are of a different state than when running freely. It really does distract from an active firefight.

          I take it you're an Emacs user. How droll.
    • by kannibal_klown (531544) on Wednesday November 22, 2006 @06:24PM (#16958240)
      Technically, it's a 3rd person shooter. You're zoomed up pretty close to the guy, without the ability to change the perspective (except sniping). Normally I hate games like that, but this does it rather well.

      Graphically, it's a pretty nice game. Sure, PC shooters already surpassed it but for a console game it's quite magnificent. Lots of detail gets rendered nicely for HD content.

      Its gameplay is nothing ground-breaking, but it remains quite fun. The enemy AI isn't super intelligent, but smart enough for a good time. The whole game is big on taking cover: IE you walk up to a wall or ledge or stone debris and hide behind it. Then you peak out and fire, run to some different/better cover and repeat; failure to do so results in your death. Sure, there are places with little to no cover at which point it is simple shoot them until one of you die, but those environments are sparse.

      The game takes place in a post-warzone Earth. It's been invaded by beings that have burrowed beneath the surface that pop out to slaughter the surface dwellers. Most of the creatures are bipeds (walk on hind legs like a human) with scatterings of more monsterous animals. The atmosphere is pretty dark (literally and metaphorically). The world is in shambles, there's not a building or neighborhood that isn't trashed. You meet some survivors who feel the military has turned their backs on the people, and see that their lives really really suck.

      Pretty much, it's THE big console shooter (for the moment). Personally, I found it a lot more enjoyable than the Halo games.
    • by jchenx (267053) on Wednesday November 22, 2006 @06:31PM (#16958330) Journal
      It is just another FPS, isn't it?
      Is there somethign fantasticly inovative about it?
      somethign horribly fun?
      Somethign original?

      please, I am curious. (and lazy)
      Sure, I'll help you out.

      It's not "just another FPS". In fact, it's not a first-person shooter at all. It's third-person, which is an important distinction. Like many people, I prefer my FPS games on PCs, where the keyboard/mouse combination really can't be beat (at least IMHO). When I play a typical shooter (which have been mostly first-person based, hence FPS) on the console, I get the sense that I've lost a lot of control. For some reason, the third-person controls in Gears ... just works. Very well. It's hard to describe it, and easy to just give it a shot yourself (find a friend with a 360 and Gears).

      As for innovation, it's got plenty of interesting bits to it: a very comprehensive "cover" game mechanic, a new twist on reloading (called "Active Reload"), and the concept of being able to revive your teammates on the fly. None of them alone are "OMG!!!" material, but all together, makes it one very nice package.

      Also, one huge bonus to the game is that it has Live-enabled co-op through the "single"-player experience. It's very seamless. I haven't tried it myself, but friends can't stop talking about how cool it is. Apparently that's a similar sentiment with many other folks. It's a feature that many folks wished Halo 2 had.

      Does Gears have flaws? It certainly does. Zonk and other reviewers have pointed out that the AI can be fairly dumb (although many people, myself included, think it's just fine), and the multiplayer is somewhat shallow (not enough modes). That said, the sentiment is that the game is just so much fun that despite some flaws here and there, it's very much Game of the Year material.

      Oh, and one last thing, yeah, the game is very pretty. But graphics alone don't sell a game, and the things people love about it, go beyond graphics. That's nice to see for a change.

      So, in short, give it a shot. It's quite original for a shooter, and a whole lotta fun.
      • by Thansal (999464)
        hmm, from what you, and all of the above posters have said, it sounds like it is primarily a very good version of a tactical shooter (something I do like). I am primarily a PC gammer, and I am buying a Wii (looks like I can get one this weekend, yay for me), however I keep on getting tempted by the 360. There seem to be a number of very good games, some solid net play (the subscription is one of the big things putting me off there), and some amasing graphics (my budget says no HD TV for me, another put of
        • by Cheapy (809643)
          From what I remember, every xbox360 allows you to play games freely. But only on the weekends. Being able to play any day costs the subscription. I find the price worth it though.
          • I can't tell you whether its free certain days or not. The reason I purchased it was simple. During some of the time for which I could be playing games, it wasn't too difficult to rack up $20 here and $30 there, a yearly entertainment cost during those hours could total several hundred or more dollars. The yearly subscription was $50. I didn't necessarily purchase the subscription to save money, but I'm pretty certain I did.
          • by HAKdragon (193605)
            Microsoft will occasionally have free weekends that allow Live Silver members to play online for the weekend. These are usually held on big events such as E3 or X06 so you can't play for free every weekend. (though that's what I heard they were planning on when Microsoft first started talking about the 360.) Some games, such as Gears of War and Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter do come with codes that you can redeem to get 48 hours of Live Gold membership for free. I kind of wish most games would come with t
      • When I play a typical shooter (which have been mostly first-person based, hence FPS) on the console, I get the sense that I've lost a lot of control. For some reason, the third-person controls in Gears ... just works.

        Just for the record, using COD2 as an example, I use the two analog sticks on my 360. They give me an infinite amount of very fast control (My sensitivity is ultra high) in camera and movement, assuming my thumbs are on their game. The game on the computer uses the mouse for camera (infinite)
        • by jchenx (267053)

          Just for the record, using COD2 as an example, I use the two analog sticks on my 360. They give me an infinite amount of very fast control (My sensitivity is ultra high) in camera and movement, assuming my thumbs are on their game. The game on the computer uses the mouse for camera (infinite) and 4 buttons for up, down, left and right. So what control do you feel you lose exactly?

          Technically, you're correct. However, I've been playing FPS games on PCs for years longer than on shooters. Also, I use the mouse

  • Correct. I use gaming to remove myself from reality, and find that the media, news, comments that I choose to read using the Internet is of better quality and less frustrating than the "popular media" like TV and commercial radio. Duh. Huge piles of Duh for the "reporter" trolled that article.
  • I am truly surprised that people are willing to buy yet-another-FPS. Didn't we get enough of this with Quake? Why would you want to buy essentially the same game with some sprites changed? I just don't get it.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Pojut (1027544)
      again, it's not an FPS, it's a third person shooter. Secondly, quake didn't use sprites because it was not 2D based (i.e. it wasen't using the BUILD engine) and third, for the same reason that people will watch a horror movie after seeing the original phantom of the opera from waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back when...different experiences.
    • by Pojut (1027544)
      Also, quake was HARDLY the first FPS. That would be Catacomb released back in 1989...look up Catacomb 3D on Wikipedia, that was released in '91
  • Not an FPS (Score:3, Informative)

    by Rowan_u (859287) on Wednesday November 22, 2006 @07:44PM (#16959228)
    I see a lot of comments here referring to Gears as an FPS and no one correcting them. It is most decidedly not. Its a third person tactical shooter, not unlike Ghost Recon, or even Splinter Cell.
    • by Serengeti (48438)
      No one correcting them? Holy crap, I was starting to get sick of how many people were starting their posts off with "first, its not an FPS, it's a third person shooter."

      Just the 3 first responder posts above yours on my screen currently show corrections, and those posts were made at least an hour before yours!
    • by The-Bus (138060)
      I think for most people it's the PS or the S in FPS that's important. The F is just details. For the most part, most First- and Third-Person shooters work the same way. You have control over a reticle, aim it at stuff, and shoot. Games like GoW and GRAW (love these acronyms) need the third-person view to show you how well you're hiding, etc.
  • Im sure that record will get smoked
  • by brkello (642429) on Wednesday November 22, 2006 @09:09PM (#16960068)
    The 360 is just looking better and better to me. The rough part is I have promised myself to play all the great games of the previous gen before I move on! God of War, FFXII, RE4 just to name a few. Ah well, maybe I can wait until the next price drop but still...I am pretty excited to see this news. It seems that all 3 consoles will have something great to offer...though it seems like the greatness might be slipping away from the PS3. They better hold on tight to Square Enix.
  • The Unreal 3.0 Engine totally rocks!!!
  • Hype (Score:1, Troll)

    by jedigeek (102443)
    How much do you think Microsoft are paying to get this continued onslaught of dull Gears of War press all over the Internet?

"If that makes any sense to you, you have a big problem." -- C. Durance, Computer Science 234

Working...