Doom: The Dark Ages is a flop

Every kill in doom dark ages feels personal, and yes paying $80 for any game will make anyone feel queasy.
Sick Nicksplat GIF by Hey Arnold
 
Jigsaah said:
Ok I think I have a clearer picture now. Metacritic score for user-rating doesn't lie but there is vocal opposition to the direction of Eternal. Maybe a stretch to say it's divisive as that would indicate closer to a 50-50 split in sentiment. So as it pertains to my original thoughts on why the Dark Ages is suffering...does the "perfect storm" theory hold up?

Some are saying it was Gamepass, others are saying it's Doom fatigue. I think it's a combination of these things. Was I dying for a Doom sequel? No...I was hopeful when they announced it, though. I'm a bad case to follow though as I didn't play Eternal until it came out on Gamepass. So I'm not really much of a Doom fan, comparatively speaking.
Click to expand...
People are saying a lot. But the reality is, we don't know. There are numbers out there. But if this is a success or not is only known by Microsoft/Bethesda/id at the moment. I mean, it's a $70 title which already grossed people out, and it launched on Game Pass. I'm sure people that are even somewhat curious about the game will try it on Game Pass before shelling out $70. Hell, maybe even some hardcore fans because of the price being so high alone. Especially in other countries.

I'm a huge DOOM fan, and I thought the game was fun and enjoyable. Even if it was my least favorite in the new trilogy, it wasn't a bad game by any means, and anyone that enjoyed the previous two games should check it out for themselves.

I still don't think it's "suffering" personally. They marketed it pretty hard, so it's not like no one knew. They were also very vocal about it launching on Game Pass. It makes sense to me that it would have more Game Pass players than sales. Especially when it's as expensive as it is.
 
I haven't reupped my gamepass sub yet to play, but I plan to when I get back home in a few days. This is the first Doom game since the 2016 reboot that actually grabbed my attention. I like parry mechanics, so it is kind of up my alley. Ironically enough, the Doom that peaks my interest the most seems to be the one struggling to find an audience.
 
You hardly expect it to do huge number's when it's on game pass. There's not much of a future for games like this which are day 1 on Sunday services.
 
Atrus said:
It's certainly not doing the numbers Bethesda expected when it was called Doom: Year Zero in internal forecasts.
Click to expand...
Yeah they also expected it to come out in 2023 and that Redfall would make $145 million in its first year. They were probably not very good at forecasting.
 
Kacho said:
Expectations would vary depending on the type of game and budget...
Click to expand...
Ok, so you don't really know.
Kacho said:
... a service like Game Pass is very dependent on constant growth and retention. That's why Nutella and Phil were using Game Pass growth as a determining factor for their annual bonuses.
Click to expand...
Not quite. Growth is only relevant until it reaches saturation, which it appears Game Pass has. Past that point, only retention matters. As we've seen in Microsoft's reports, its revenue growth for Xbox is largely driven by Game Pass. Which means they're either maintaining or growing their base. They're around 34 million subscribers at last count, which brings in over $300m in revenue every month. If the cost of the games on Game Pass for a given month exceeds this, the service runs into red. If it doesn't, the service runs into the black. Budget estimates have it at around $100m, so it's been paid for in full already just from Game Pass subscriber revenue. And that ignores all sales entirely.
ChorizoPicozo said:
... To match let's say, 3M copies worth of revenue at $75, GP needs to acquire between 11-15M new subscribers.
Click to expand...
The game sells for USD$80.00. With 3 million players, that would be $240m in revenue from sales. Less platform fees from PlayStation and Steam, they'd be looking at around $200m potential take home. Sales are front loaded, so that would stand as the majority of money id / Microsoft could hope to make. In the month D:TDA launches, Game Pass generated $300m+ in revenue. And keep in mind, it seems to have sold a little under 1m copies as a floor in addition to Game Pass subs. The idea that Doom needed to grow the entire Game Pass base by 30% doesn't really make any accounting sense here.
 
ZehDon said:
Ok, so you don't really know.
Click to expand...
It's common sense. Obviously expectations for a Double Fine game would be much lower than the next Halo.

ZehDon said:
Not quite. Growth is only relevant until it reaches saturation, which it appears Game Pass has. Past that point, only retention matters. As we've seen in Microsoft's reports, its revenue growth for Xbox is largely driven by Game Pass. Which means they're either maintaining or growing their base. They're around 34 million subscribers at last count, which brings in over $300m in revenue every month. If the cost of the games on Game Pass for a given month exceeds this, the service runs into red. If it doesn't, the service runs into the black. Budget estimates have it at around $100m, so it's been paid for in full already just from Game Pass subscriber revenue. And that ignores all sales entirely.
Click to expand...
Saturation has happened much faster than anticipated. Growth has been negligible with small percentage changes despite having big titles like Starfield and Call of Duty on the service. They went from talking about "billions of gamers across to globe" to recently "it's all about choice."

The rest of your post is armchair gamer math and I'm not wasting time entertaining that.
 
Kacho said:
It's common sense...

... The rest of your post is armchair gamer math and I'm not wasting time entertaining that.
Click to expand...
The irony here is so dense that I'm pretty sure Matthew McConaughey flew around it to travel through time in that Christopher Nolan movie.
 
ZehDon said:
The game sells for USD$80.00. With 3 million players, that would be $240m in revenue from sales. Less platform fees from PlayStation and Steam, they'd be looking at around $200m potential take home. Sales are front loaded, so that would stand as the majority of money id / Microsoft could hope to make. In the month D:TDA launches, Game Pass generated $300m+ in revenue. And keep in mind, it seems to have sold a little under 1m copies as a floor in addition to Game Pass subs. The idea that Doom needed to grow the entire Game Pass base by 30% doesn't really make any accounting sense here.
Click to expand...
GP's revenue ≠ a Game revenue.
ChorizoPicozo said:
Regardless of the amount of revenue Game Pass generates, the point is the loss of a game's revenue. Why?


Look at this (this is a conversation between Phil and another MS executive):

"So how should studios now measure their worth to the portfolio? I know you dislike the Netflix analogy, but I am trying to understand the equivalent of 'ending a show' in their model".

"I'd be really saddened if the reduction of an inherently creative endeavor to a single cell going red was the determinant. How about looking back on the studio closures of the past — would a product like Game Pass have changed your mind on any particular studio's closure?"

Phil:
It's some combination of attract and retain to our service. Different games perform differently, some are very high on play and therefore a higher impact on retention, others are good top of funnel for attract but don't get much play. You need both. I'd be lying to you if I told you we had the excel sheet of the value of a game completely figured out. We are working with the MS chief economists on the value of content and they have a model that we've working but it's not complete (and likely never will be)

This uncertainty creates a scenario in which Microsoft doesn't know how to evaluate a game's performance; there are too many variables, too many magic metrics, and too much spin.

A game can reach 3 million players… but how much time are these people engaged? What's the difference between those who bought the game and those who accessed it via Game Pass? How many of these players are new Game Pass subscribers generated by the game, and how many were previously subscribed (churn)? How does the CCU discourse affect the "viral marketing" of a game? for example. Is it worth spending 6–7 years on games like South of Midnight and Hellblade 2 only for them to be completely irrelevant and inconsequential?

If xbox can spin any game as a success, the project management triangle (Time, money and quality) will be out of whack: Opportunity Cost.


What will be the consequence of this?
A syncopation between a game's sales and its reach and engagement via Game Pass can disrupt alignment across its design, funding, marketing, quality, and scope. We've already seen this happen: games that neither attract new Game Pass subscribers nor generate strong engagement, their reach is low, and they also perform poorly in sales....A completely shitshow that is doomed to fail.
Click to expand...
 
Kacho said:
This would make sense if I had given you bogus numbers like you just did.
Click to expand...
You know you are in a thread where the basic thesis is that Hi FI rush with 6000 max concurrent players sold more copies on steam than Doom with 30000 max concurrent players, right?
 
poppabk said:
You know you are in a thread where the basic thesis is that Hi FI rush with 6000 max concurrent players sold more copies on steam than Doom with 30000 max concurrent players, right?
Click to expand...
My participation in this thread has nothing to do with the horseshit in the OP. That Rush guy seemingly shits on everything with reckless abandon.
 
ZehDon said:
Ok, so you don't really know.

Not quite. Growth is only relevant until it reaches saturation, which it appears Game Pass has. Past that point, only retention matters. As we've seen in Microsoft's reports, its revenue growth for Xbox is largely driven by Game Pass. Which means they're either maintaining or growing their base. They're around 34 million subscribers at last count, which brings in over $300m in revenue every month. If the cost of the games on Game Pass for a given month exceeds this, the service runs into red. If it doesn't, the service runs into the black. Budget estimates have it at around $100m, so it's been paid for in full already just from Game Pass subscriber revenue. And that ignores all sales entirely.

The game sells for USD$80.00. With 3 million players, that would be $240m in revenue from sales. Less platform fees from PlayStation and Steam, they'd be looking at around $200m potential take home. Sales are front loaded, so that would stand as the majority of money id / Microsoft could hope to make. In the month D:TDA launches, Game Pass generated $300m+ in revenue. And keep in mind, it seems to have sold a little under 1m copies as a floor in addition to Game Pass subs. The idea that Doom needed to grow the entire Game Pass base by 30% doesn't really make any accounting sense here.
Click to expand...
People like to ignore that the reason subscription services are so prevalent is because of its ability to generate consistent revenue as compared to selling individual units . I don't have a current gamepass sub, so I don't be have any skin in the game, but it is odd to see so many act like this isn't the case. A game doesn't have to sell a ton of individual units to be a success on sub services, it just has to add to the packages value proposition and either help grow or retain customers.
 
ChorizoPicozo said:
GP's revenue ≠ a Game revenue.
Click to expand...
[GP Revenue] - [Cost of games on GP] = [GP Profit].

Doom released in May 2025, so: [GP Revenue May 2025] - [GP Costs May 2025] = [Profit May 2025]. Was profit a positive number? Then Doom couldn't have flopped. This is what GP does - it puts everything in the same pot, allowing Microsoft to generate $300m revenue every month even if they don't release a single game. Welcome to the wonderful world of stable revenue via subscriptions.
 
Kacho said:
My participation in this thread has nothing to do with the horseshit in the OP. That Rush guy seemingly shits on everything with reckless abandon.
Click to expand...
That's one issue, that other posters here tend to do as well, but the larger issue with Rush is that he almost never replies to people. I think I can count on one hand when he has actually engaged with anyone here. Hell, he doesn't even come back to respond to people when he asks a question in a post.

And to bring it back to your point, this whole 'don't engage with anyone' shtick he keeps doing wouldn't be a big deal if it weren't for the fact that 9 times out of 10 he'll engage in threadshitting by making a negative hot take on post number two. If someone told me he were the ghost of SlimeGooGoo I would believe them.

So even if someone could refute him with evidence or try and have a deeper conversation on his own topic, it's pointless because there's a 99% chance that he is never coming back.
 
For me it's the Resident Evil 6 syndrome. I don't buy the next game after being fooled once. Eternal is a really good game in its own right but it isn't my cup of tea despite trying mamy times. I didn't think D2016 was some revelation either so I just checked out after Eternal. I don't like the series' direction.

I paid so little attention to Dark Ages that I thought it was DLC or some expansion thingie for ages despite being on here. Nobody I game with bought it either.
 
Like i said in one of the many similar threads, i just cant pay £70 for a semi linear 'one and done' 12 hour campaign.
I played on Gmaepass, my cousin played on Gamepass, the 2 streamers i watched play the game played on Gmaepass, and there were a ton of people on Steam around launch saying they were playing on Gamepass.
Ironically this is where Gamepass comes into its own. A short (by todays standards) AAA game where people will probably want to play it, but cant justify the high price for the amount of game you get.

Also as legendary as the DOOM franchise is, the reboots really havent been that big. The 2016 reboot peaked with around 42k, and yes Steam is larger today, but we also talking about a reboot of a legendary series.
Eternal peaked at 100k, but it was also at a time where 90% of the worlds population were at home. And even AA and some Indie games were pulling surprisingly big numbers through covid.
And thats with both 2016 and Eternal not being on Gamepass, which The Dark Ages is.

When you put everything together, the game actually is probably doing around what it should be doing, when taking everything into account.
 
Will buy it on a deep discount.

But I got to admit this ain't what I want from Doom.

I might have bitten or been tempted as hell if Id did something similar like this but with a revived Hexen game sans the shield. Give me the crazy magic shit as projectiles and bring that IP back. That would have been cool. Bring back the Serpent Riders and their minions and go balls to wall fantasy there.
 
Last edited:
Eh, the game is ok I guess. Better than Eternal, but nowhere near what Doom 2016 was. If this is what a Quake remake would end up looking like, I definitely no longer want that to happen, that's for sure.
 
Jigsaah said:
clarky clarky care to add something here?
Click to expand...
The reception at the time was pretty much what you are seeing now. (With pretty similar user scores as well. 90 on Opencritic, 85% on Steam etc).

Clearly Eternal is not a bad game, just not for everyone. Just like DA.

ChorizoPicozo said:
To match let's say, 3M copies worth of revenue at $75, GP needs to acquire between 11-15M new subscribers.
Click to expand...
Explain please.
 
Last edited:
ZehDon said:
[GP Revenue] - [Cost of games on GP] = [GP Profit].

Doom released in May 2025, so: [GP Revenue May 2025] - [GP Costs May 2025] = [Profit May 2025]. Was profit a positive number? Then Doom couldn't have flopped. This is what GP does - it puts everything in the same pot, allowing Microsoft to generate $300m revenue every month even if they don't release a single game. Welcome to the wonderful world of stable revenue via subscriptions.
Click to expand...
Imagine saying this after Phil said:

I'd be lying to you if I told you we had the excel sheet of the value of a game completely figured out. We are working with the MS chief economists on the value of content and they have a model that we've working but it's not complete (and likely never will be)
one can think your equation makes sense, it makes so much sense and it's so simple that makes you think:

1. why isn't Sony going all in?
2. why does MS needs to release their games on PC and Playstation.?
3. Why does Xbox not report profits?
4. Why is their revenue lower than PS's?
your [GP Profit] and wonderful world of stable revenue
should account for every license fee MS has to pay to third party publishers to put their games on GP, First party development, infrastructure, marketing, operational cost etc...
This is what GP does - it puts everything in the same pot

and as i explained. When you put "everything in they same pot" you can spin everything as a success and because you have so many variables you are not sure about the significance of any given factor
 
ZehDon said:
Ok, so to be successful, Game Pass must have infinite growth? How many new players must every game on Game Pass bring in to be considered a success?
Click to expand...
Gamepass should quite literally be double the size in sub count it's at now. And the 34 million number you've got is the fake inflated version when accounting for notXBLG subs. Even from the previously announced peak, all signs indicate that there's been churn.
 
Stats don't lie, proof that Eternal was more successful and a better game. I love Doom Franchise, I still liked Dark Ages but it was a big step back from Eternal. Eternal was so much more game and content.
 
clarky said:
Assuming everyone cancels after a month?

What about existing recurring revenue?
Click to expand...
just to be on the same page. i was replying to this question:
ZehDon said:
How many new players must every game on Game Pass bring in to be considered a success?
Click to expand...
my answer was simple: The same amount whatever the revenue is for any given amount of copies. 3M is just at the lower end of the spectrum for an AAA can be considered as a financial success.


the existing revenue has to be divided between everything:

Infrastructure
licensing fees for third party games
game development
marketing
operational cost
erc..
 
DirtInUrEye said:
I can still enjoy a good shooter, but I never fancied this after bailing on the second game about a quarter way through. The bullet hell genre is kind of played out at this point, everyone's making them and there's only so many times I can go through these motions over the course of 30 years.
Click to expand...
I'd love to know in the last 5+ years what games are like Doom 'bullet hell' genre? How is it played out? There aren't enough games like Doom. You bailed on Eternal because it was to hard/stressful for you just like every other Eternal hater in denial. Eternal is peak Arena FPS.
 
I've only played 2016, but they sound like 3 different games. I'm all for trying new stuff but maybe this has screwed up the franchise a little. For $70 you want a sure thing.
 
Justin9mm said:
Stats don't lie, proof that Eternal was more successful and a better game. I love Doom Franchise, I still liked Dark Ages but it was a big step back from Eternal. Eternal was so much more game and content.
Click to expand...
Justin9mm said:
I'd love to know in the last 5+ years what games are like Doom 'bullet hell' genre? How is it played out? There aren't enough games like Doom. You bailed on Eternal because it was to hard/stressful for you just like every other Eternal hater in denial. Eternal is peak Arena FPS.
Click to expand...
I think Eternal has split the Doom fanbase in two different directions and that it should have been made into a Quake game all along, because I've always considered Doom overall to be more of a slightly slower paced "check your corners, strafe well, and pace yourself" type of game.

Eternal feeling like Doom 2016 on crack should have never been titled Doom, and this is not a negative as I enjoyed the game. It just should have been called Quake 5.
 
PeteBull said:
Its not a bad game, problem is, its a sequel to doom:eternal who burned tons of doom 2016 players, trust was broken, hard to get it back, ppl simply wanted more of doom 2016 and we got what we got :(
Click to expand...
The numbers will tell you that a lot of people liked Eternal, otherwise it would have flopped like Dark Ages.
 
SILKYSMOOTH30FPS said:
I am not too sure why people want this game to be failing so hard. Its inferior to the last two, but that isn't saying much because they were both amazing, and being inferior to amazing is still great.
Click to expand...
To think it's a flop looking at the data available(as everything MS has touched)it's not like to want it falling so hard if I can say.
 
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo said:
just to be on the same page. i was replying to this question:

my answer was simple: The same amount whatever the revenue is for any given amount of copies. 3M is just at the lower end of the spectrum for an AAA can be considered as a financial success.


the existing revenue has to be divided between everything:

Infrastructure
licensing fees for third party games
game development
marketing
operational cost
erc..
Click to expand...
Sure on the existing revenue part but 11 million new subs part is way off I think personally. Unless they all cancel after just one month. Also doesn't take into consideration other potential spend in the eco system like the ultimate edition upgrades or spend on MTX in other GP titles these new users wouldn't have spent other wise.

You think MS is expecting to add 11 million new subs (and keep them) every time they release a AAA game onto the service?

To be clear I have no love for GP myself either but sales clearly don't matter to them. They are playing a very long game (that I don't see working out for them but still).
 
ProtoByte said:
Gamepass should quite literally be double the size in sub count it's at now. And the 34 million number you've got is the fake inflated version when accounting for notXBLG subs. Even from the previously announced peak, all signs indicate that there's been churn.
Click to expand...
Why should it be double?
Microsoft continue to report revenue growth driven by Game Pass. So, either the subs have stayed the same and they're making slightly more money per sub, the subs have decreased but they're making a lot more money per sub, or the subs have simply increased. I'll let you pick which one you prefer.
 
Hari Seldon said:
The problem was that while Eternal was indeed fantastic, a significant portion of the players never played it enough to have it "click". You see examples of that in this very thread. Eternal's biggest issue was that it completely failed to on-ramp players into its trifecta system. Players don't like having 12 rounds of ammo and having to switch guns constantly. I hated this myself and wrote off Eternal until recently when the hype for TDA caused me to replay it and now I love it more than 2016. But it is hard to ask players to push through the first couple of hours.
Click to expand...
Just like Days Gone.. It was a flop when released because the first hours were quite a slow burn.. Now that it has been put in the spotlight with the Remastered version, it's somehow now a great game. This what I hate about GAF and gamers, they play an hour or two and think they know the game, that's probably most Eternal haters.
 
ZehDon said:
Why should it be double?
Microsoft continue to report revenue growth driven by Game Pass. So, either the subs have stayed the same and they're making slightly more money per sub, the subs have decreased but they're making a lot more money per sub, or the subs have simply increased. I'll let you pick which one you prefer.
Click to expand...
I doubt MS is that happy about the Game Pass revenues looking at their past expectations. Also it literally killed the xbox brand imo. I'm not that sure it was worth the price.
 
Last edited:
poppabk said:
Or retain 1 million for a year.
Click to expand...
Only if Doom is solely responsible for that. If it's actually Doom and a bunch of other games responsible for it (far more likely for a retained sub), we can't assign all of a subscriber's $$ to Doom and to Game 2 and to Game 3 and to Game 4 etc.

People quite often seem to conflate 'Player' with 'Subscriber', when it probably works out at more like 5-10 Players = 1 Subscriber (so far as long term subscribers are concerned).
 
Windom Earle said:
I wanted to pick this up when they patch in Path Tracing but the 80€ price tag and the parrying mechanics require a deep sale for me to be interested. Playing Clair Obscur and while the parrying is very well done in that game, I do not need it in fucking Doom.
Do a good Quake game without so many gimmicks next and people will be happy.
Click to expand...
People will never be happy this days, we as gamers star turning in spoiled cunts & biching on everything......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

DOOM: The Dark Ages soundtrack sample
38
919
Durin replied
Doom: The Dark Ages And suspicions of the industry
2 3
129
2K
Justin9mm replied
Doom: Dark Ages… oofff 5000 Series
2 3
110
1K
Unknown Soldier replied
  • Featured
Doom: The Dark Ages |OT| Mod City
|OT|  21 22 23 24 25
1K
4K
Punished Miku replied
  • Poll
Doom: The Dark Ages | Review Thread
Analysis Review  7 8 9 10 11
533
4K
Super Lemon Drop replied
Top Bottom