NASB 2

Haven't you been reading what i post?
I don't give a shit about what random eceleb has to say, i want official sales numbers from an official source.

So you can frick off with your babyraging, homosexual. Your ranting and conspiracy theories won't change that it's officially thought of as a success if they describe it as such. With NASB 1 getting DLC and a higher budget sequel.

No one official thought the game a success, no one has said such a thing, and don't say "But the sequel", no, i already said why that means jack shit.

>You won't get it. Gamemill doesn't care to post concrete sales data because it's a shovelware company. Insisting that because Multiversus did it that means NASB has to do it or it flopped is an insane amount of conspiracy theorying.
They won't release sales yet they (Or at least someone working on the game) would give out the more vague info possible? That's suspicious.
>Devs literally said it performed beyond their wildest expectations.
That means nothing when their wildest expectations was such a low bar.
>The game wasn't even set to get DLC until it did from the game's performance.
DLC was confirmed before the game's release, i already told you this.
>The sequel wouldn't have a bigger budget if NASB flopped and the kart racers prove that.
And what makes you think the kart racers did get bigger budgets for thei sequels?
In fact, the kart racers are proof that Nick and GameMill will give any game a sequel no matter how much it flops.

>Gamemill doesn't care and is notorious for not communicating. And look at this tiny ass dev team, none of them are gonna have the time nor opportunity to grab at sales data. Only Gamemill would have that
Then where the the revenue info came from?
>The fact that it "passed the low bar" like you mentioned means that made enough to succeed.
Something can jump over bar placed right on the ground but just because people were expecting it to trip over it doesn't make that jump any impressive.
>Since when? I don't remember seeing that.
During the big hype train the game got before release.
>The kart racers still look and feel extremely low budget.
Yes, but the sequels are at least bigger budget than the first one.
>NASB 2 clearly got some favoring of Nick
Over blind hype that has clearly worn off.
>it did not flop just because you say so.
And i can not believe in it being a success just because you say so.

>It came from steam bro
Can i get a link?
>source? We didn't know shit about DLC until the Universe Pack.
We didn't know what'd be in it but we did know that DLC was coming.
>None of the kart racers have NASB 2's budget.
But the budget was bigger than the first.
>Make all the excuses you want but the fact that Nickelodeon gave them a bigger budget this times shows it did succeed.
It shows they overestimated the hype and interest.
>There's more supporting it. You have to resort to dumbass conspiracy theories.
I can say the same about what you're saying.
>Not only that, but you say I'm biased but you actively hate the game.
OK.
>The devs words have more value than yours
The devs have no words about it, they have said nothing. Everything that you want me to believe that comes from the devs has been your words without any proof that they come from any of the devs.

>I gave you the link. It's literally that article where it sources GameSensor's forecast from Steam.
Oh yeah that. Already gave my thoughts on that.
>Again, where? Give a source, DLC was not confirmed until after launch.
Here's an article from September 2021, a month before the game released. They were in talks for DLC a month before release.
https://www.esportstalk.com/news/nickelodeon-all-star-brawl-might-get-voiceovers-dlc-in-the-future/
>Yet, again, still less money put into it than NASB 2.
You're missing the point here, the point being not that it got the same amount as NASB2, but it got more than kart racers 1.
>It's a response to the fact that the first game sold extremely well. Which it did
Again, this is just your word, nothing official.
>a lot of people who never even touch licensed games got NASB 1.
Yeah, competitive players who don't give a shit about the Nicktoons and dropped the game after a week.
>You literally have to brush off the devs words and insist that because Gamemill didn't personally share it then that must mean it flopped. That's slippery slope logic.
Again, you have not given any of the dev's words. All you have been doing is giving me your own words and trying to pass it off as the dev's.
Unless you're one of the devs yourself i have no reason to believe in your words.
>Literally said it exceeded expectations with you resorting to "it doesn't count" tier logic.
And like i said, it being so vague is suspicious. Not to mention how such vagueness is a tactic companies use to make something seem bigger than it actually is.

>I don't care what you think. What is shown is pure fact. Fact that you're handwaving while having the nerve to tell me I'm biased.
You have given me to prove that what you're saying is fact.
>Yes, TALKS. That's what I said, DLC wasn't fully approved nor expected to happen. The game did well. That's not an official announcement or confirmation that it's coming.
The fact that they were in talks is proof that DLC was considered before the game actually release.
Also actually read the article i sent you, it outright confirms DLC.
>Your point falls flat since NASB 2 is specifically getting favored treatment like I said it was.
And like i said Nick overestimated the hype and interest. Don't try to make this go in circles.
>Doesn't matter, don't move the goalposts. They bought it and helped make it a success.
It does matter because they proved how little they actually care about the game. And stop calling it a success when you still don't have any solid evidence.
>Nope. You're shifting the goalposts now and conventionality trying to brush off that you believed it but said that it's a low bar so it magically doesn't count.
I'm not shifting any goalposts. You just haven't provided any proof that what you're saying is the words of the devs. The only thing you have proved is that you take everything you hear from the devs at face value without question.
>Except we can see for ourselves that NASB 1 had no budget so it clearly made back what it put into the game.
That doesn't make the sales impressive, it just means the game was dirt cheap, the least impressive "success" story anyone can ever tell.
>There's documented history of the game having a ludicrous amount of people buying and playing
The game peaked at 9k on steam and the numbers tanked fast, yet you act like it did as well as Street Fighter.
>that's disproportionate with the actual quality of the game.
Well at least you can admit that the game is crap.

>It's fact that it made the team lots of revenue from steam
Revenue that has to be split between four companies. I hope you knew this.
>You essentially just went "I don't caaaaareee, you're biased, doesn't count!!!".
I never said i didn't care.
>The devs wanted DLC but Nick and Gamemill wasn't as into the idea. That much was given about game development history of NASB 1. Nickelodeon calls the shots with everything and has the final say, not the devs.
Yeah no shit. That doesn't disprove what i'm saying about the DLC. Like i said, read the article.
>Your point means literally nothing. You failed to change my point that NASB 1 was a success.
Ignoring the fact that this doesn't address what you greentexted.
You haven't changed my point that NASB1 wasn't a success.
>I have more solid evidence and proof than you. You just handwave it because you don't personally care. And nope, what you're babbling about means frick all. I don't care whether or not they care, that's irrelevant to my point. You're moving the goalposts to b***h about a completely different topic.
The only thing i have to say to this is back at ya. Seriously, everything you said here would make more sense if i were telling it to you.
>Doesn't change that it's a success, dumb frick. By objective definition its a success. You not finding it impressive doesn't change the fact.
Calling it a success when it's made dirt cheap is disingenuous. Whatever success you claim the game has is disingenuous for the simple fact that it was made cheap. That's not what people would consider a fulfilling success. The only people who'd consider such a story a success story are hacks.
>Not once have I said NASB 1 wasn't flawed.
Never said you did. Just saying that it's nice of you to admit that.

>You actively dismissed the article without even reading it.
Actually i have read it before.
>Yes it does. It wouldn't have got DLC if the game bombed.
It would if it were planned before release.
>You had to resort to bringing up irrelevant shit.
What are you referring to? Not to mention everything you've been saying is "The game was a success because i said so!"
>You didn't provide a single worthwhile evidence that suggests NASB 1 didn't do well.
The fact that it was ditched so fast for a sequel is a good sign.. When things do badly a sequel tends to be rushed out to compensate.
And you have yet to give any good evidence yourself, everything you brought up i have provided counter points to that you just try to counter by repeating yourself.
>NASB 1 passed a point that shows it made a good amount of money for a licensed game.
It being a licensed game means jack shit. Just because it's a licensed game doesn't mean it should be treated any differently.
>Your idea that it can't be a success because it's dirt cheap is objectively wrong.
Not being able to sell at least a million (Especially compared to the hype it got) and losing over 90% of players in a week isn't what i'd call a success no matter how cheap it was made.
>You not finding it fulfilling is your personal opinion, doesn't change that it's a financial success.
Like i said, the only people who'd consider such low sales and playerbase a success just because of how cheap it was to make are hacks.
>There's nothing to admit either, moron. I said from the very beginning that NASB 1 isn't great but sold well.
Yeah, that's you admitting that the game is crap.

>Something can't be a success if its made cheap
Actual moron.

I never said that, you misinterpret me.
What i'm saying is that a bomb is a bomb no matter how cheap it is.

Yet no one has given any solid evidence that it wasn't a bomb.
>Investment
NASB2 sold even worse with a bigger budget so so much for for that investment.

You clearly didn't.
No it wouldn't have. Again, Nickelodeon calls the shots. The game was only getting DLC if it made money to justify further investment.
>Not to mention everything you've been saying is "The game is a success because i said so!"
You're projecting. I gave sources that clearly show the game made money but you brushed it off because it didn't suit your narrative.
>When things do badly a sequel tends to be rushed out
Objectively wrong. Gamemill was just greedy. Your counterpoints weren't good counters. They were handwaves and you stating your personal opinion. Like how you think it's not impressive in your own opinion so that must mean it bombed.
>It being a licensed game means jack shit
Fricking idiot. It means a lot actually, low budget games have less to earn back than triple A titles.
>Not being able to sell at least a million
Nothing shows it didn't. That's your assumption and playerbase. It sold to justify further support and a higher quality sequel.
>Low sales
It's called different standards for a different game, moron. That's like saying every game that isn't a best seller a complete flop. And again, low budget games making double what they initially invested in is a success for the standards of a licensed game. You're a fricking moron to argue otherwise.
>That's you admitting the game is crap
Thanks for continuing to show how much of an illiterate dumbass you are.

>You clearly didn't.
Now you're trying to gaslight me.
>No it wouldn't have. Again, Nickelodeon calls the shots. The game was only getting DLC if it made money to justify further investment.
Yes it did. Nickelodeon were wanting DLC after noticing the hype it got before release.
>You're projecting.
Hypocritical.
>I gave sources that clearly show the game made money but you brushed it off because it didn't suit your narrative.
Sources that i debunked and provided counter points to, and then you responded by repeating yourself.
>Objectively wrong.
Oh please, this has happened before with Nick's kart racing games.
>Gamemill was just greedy.
If that's the case then they would have kept milking NASB1 if they thought it was successful enough to milk it dry.
>Your counterpoints weren't good counters. They were handwaves and you stating your personal opinion.
How is me pointing out the fact that companies give out vague info to make a product seem bigger than it actually is an opinion?
>Like how you think it's not impressive in your own opinion so that must mean it bombed.
Don't twist my words, i never said that, what i was saying is that the game bombed so it's not impressive.
>It means a lot actually, low budget games have less to earn back than triple A titles.
No shit. But now you're going into a whole other conversation about the problems with the industry, that basically boils down to NASB isn't special.

Nope, never said the game was crap, moron. You can't provide a single instance where I completely said that NASB 1 sucked. It giving disproportional success with the laundry list of issues doesn't equate to me seeing the game the way you do.
>seething like a sperge
You're such a pansy lmfao. You get called an idiot for saying stupid things so I must be seething.
>less forgiving than me
lol, I interacted and debated with countless anons. They don't match the narrative you made up about them and they're far less stubborn to boot. Meanwhile you'll actively ignore actual dev words of the game being bigger than they ever imagined. And you ignore it, claiming it doesn't count since it doesn't fit your narrative.

Nice headcanon but that's not confirmed. You're a massive hypocrite, directly trying to repeat what I say and throw it back at me because you lack good counters.
>Sources that i debunked
You didn't debunk shit. All you b***hed about was "muh e-celeb" without watching the video. You say I'm gaslighting you but you've done a good enough job at gaslighting yourself.
>This has happened before with Nick kart racing games
You mean the games that got zero support or DLC.
>They would have kept milking NASB 1
Not really, the devs wanted to make a sequel and Gamemill took advantage of that as they helped pour lots more budget into it. But they were greedy enough to rush the devs on the sequel and intentionally sold it at full price in an attempt to capitalize on the first game. Matter of fact, they had NASB 2 launch with different packs, like $80 and $70 packs. Your idea of "milking NASB 1" wasn't the only thing they could do and how they priced NASB 2 is a testament to that. They also made the DLC more expansive than last game too.
>How is me pointing out
Dumbass. You straight up said that the game can't be successful because you think the sales weren't impressive
>Don't twist my words, I never said that
You literally fricking did. Saying that because the bar is on the ground that means what it earned doesn't count even though that's not how it works.
>Whole other conversation
No I'm not. The game was made with no budget so it getting lots of money.

>Nothing shows it didn't. That's your assumption and playerbase.
And nothing proves it did. That's just your assumption based on vague information.
>It sold to justify further support and a higher quality sequel.
If the game actually sold well then it would have gotten more support instead of being ditched as soon as possible.
>It's called different standards for a different game, moron. That's like saying every game that isn't a best seller a complete flop. And again, low budget games making double what they initially invested in is a success for the standards of a licensed game.
And like i keep telling you, those standards are so low that it means jack shit when it only manages to get slightly above those standards, yet you act like it went above and beyond all the way to the moon.
>Thanks for continuing to show how much of an illiterate dumbass you are.
You just agreed with me a while ago that the game is crap, so you admit the game is crap. Don't try to take it back now.
And you know, it's really saying something about you when i'm the one who's actually polite while you're the one seething like a sperg.
You know, you're actually lucky that NASB isn't as big as you think it is because if it were you'd have people less forgiving than me laughing at you.
[...]
Actually it was someone else who made the claim that it was a major success and all i did was disprove it, provided a counter points and debunked evidence.
I wasn't the one who started this.

>Vague information
Because 2-3 mil revenue on steam alone is vague. It's more concrete than your dogshit opinion.
>Ditched as soon as possible
How stupid are you? It objectively wasn't. It had a year of support and straight up spent extra money to add voice acting.
>Those standards are so low
Making the game a success. It doesn't need Smash numbers to succeed when it's a much smaller project. An entire point of a product is to earn money back from what was invested. Which is exactly what NASB did in spades

>Something can't be a success if its made cheap
Actual moron.