Best selling games of this year through end of March!

Wowza! Helldivers 2 is number 1 for 2024 and is the 7th highest grossing Sony published game ever! And FF7 Rebirth is the highest selling exclusive of this year. Congrats to Sony!

Helldivers 2 deserves every sale.... It's spectacular.

Howarts legacy still top 10 one year later.

No wonder lems are desperate for Helldivers2.

Who wouldn't want to pay a good developer for their work?

Wow nice. Haven't played Helldivers 2 yet but FF7 rebirth was a blast.

That's why they should get rid of their Xbox and get themselves a system worth owning, the Playstation 5.

Another thread of Sony games being day 1 in the future.😂

If I actually had friends who had a PS5 or PC, I probably wouldn't have refunded my Hell Divers 2 on Steam. Not a fan of playing with Rando's.

Congrats to Helldivers 2, Dragon's Dogma 2, FF7 Rebirth, Tekken 8 and Persona 3 Reload.

Spiderman 2 updated sold past 10m last february. Seems its another evergreen title from sony which honestly its pretty rare.

Thank PC gamers.🙃

Helldivers 2 is one of the most overrated games of all time. The price point is the only reason the game has done so well. If it were full price at $70 it would have been bashed to hell and back and been lost in a sea of mediocrity. I'm happy for their success, but it's a run of the mill average game in every aspect, even within its own genre. Not terrible, not great, just ok.

@WitIsWisdom: how is it a run of the mill shooter? What games do it better?

@SolidGame_basic: Its not that its a bad game, it's just not any better than any other wave based or coop shooters. It's a live service I suppose, but that doesn't mean it isn't like countless other coop based shooters, looter shooters, or extraction shooters.

Many games have horde modes and/or Coop level based gameplay you must clear in the form of dungeons, raids, or horde mode.

Destiny 1 and 2, Borderlands, Splatoon 2, Outriders, Alien Fireteam, CoD Raids and Zombies, Killing Floor 2 (3 is coming soon and I'm excited for it), 7 Days to Die, Warframe, Overwatch, Deep Rock Galactic, World War Z, Monster Hunter, The Division 1 and 2 (with another on the way), Darktide, Vermintide, Team Fortress 2, Earth Defense Force franchise (another dropping soon), Starship Troopers, Battlefront franchise, Left 4 Dead, Halo franchise, Anthem (this one wasn't great), Remnant 1 and 2, Rainbow 6 Extraction, Risk of Rain 2, Hunt Showdown, Vigor, Zombie Army/Trilogy, Generation Zero, Payday franchise, honestly I could probably keep going for probably over 100 games pretty easily until I had to start getting imaginative.

Now if you only want live service coop shooters the list shrinks a bit, but a lot of those I already listed would still be there. It's not that it isn't a decent game as I keep saying, but most or all the others are at least on par as well in my opinion.

It's the price point that made the game so appealing and why it has sold so well, not because it's an amazing game. At full price the game would have received a lot more low 7s across the board instead of low 8s. Many reviewers stated the price point played heavily into their decision, which shouldn't play into a score in my honest opinion.

I think it's a great blueprint moving forward to make content 40 dollars instead of free to play. That would cut down on the ftp cheating, help fund future content, and be a price point that most/average consumers could justify. It's the same reason consoles like the Wii sold so well with competitiors offering higher priced options.

It's promising as a pricing model moving forward, but that's the most exciting thing about the game. Outside of that it doesn't really do anything new other than inputting commands to call in strikes, which although cool, gets tiresome pretty quickly. Like I said before, it's a solid 7 which by no means is a bad thing, but isn't on the level of other games in the genre. Sure, we can say it's a AA game... but let's get real, it was in development for 10 years and had the budget of a AAA.

So I guess the question I have for you is; do you believe the game would have reached the same level of hype and sales had it been priced at $70?

By the way, I'm happy you love the game (obviously for me I was pretty heavily dissapointed since I fell for the hype train), and I'm not trying to change your mind. That's what makes the world turn, opinions and all that. I'm just giving a slightly different perspective from someone who has played every game mentioned. Hopefully if you haven't played some of those other games you will give them a chance and love them just as much.

@hardwenzen: why when they can play on PC like all the cows.

Dem Sony bangers!!

Congratulating remasters and remakes 🤦‍♂️

Live service games are a cancer, no matter what.

I have been away from gaming news for a bit, does this mean Spiderman 2 is on PC?

Harry Potter still up there.

Howarts Legacy...

no not until oct 2025.

don't know it scored well every where. a 8 is not overrated. now if it got 10 every were then yes you can say that. overrated its not COD.

We wish Sony would have developed those :(

@SolidGame_basic: best selling means nothing, especially in the age of gamepass. We have historical highs and records of MAU, or monthly active users. Best part is, the cost pretty much free (minus sub cost). MS and uncle phil for the gamers!

@gifford38: I feel that a low 8 is overrated for the game though. If it weren't for the $40 price tag the game would have been in the lower 7s. Something can be overrated without scoring in the top 10 or 15 percent. Many of the reviewers stated the game got higher scores in their reviews due to a consumer-friendly price. That has absolutely nothing to do with the actual gameplay and shouldn't ever factor into a review score. That is something that you should glorify and add in the notes as a positive but should not factor into the score in my opinion.

There is a reason why the game is $40, and it's not because the studio was trying to be nice or they were trying something new, it's because the game has the production value of an AA game even though it was in development for 10 years and had a AAA budget. They knew there would be outrage at $70 but had all the positives of getting the better reviews and "letting things pass for a budget game" that other games at a higher price point would never be afforded, so it's a win/win for them... however, it's not separated from those games that often times get docked points for a more expensive package. I just don't feel like you can have it both ways. That is just simply bias and inserting personal belief over the actual product itself. When I see or read a review, I feel they should be working off industry standards and not moving the goal posts to account for the price or other circumstances not directly related to the actual products enjoyability, replay value, or polish unless otherwise stated.

I'm glad the game has done so well, and I'm glad so many people like it.. however, it isn't all that great and many other games have come and gone that did it better but also had a higher price point and were bashed for it. That said, I think they proved the $40 tag (maybe even $30-$50) is probably more of a sweet spot for pricing, and for that I applaud them.

Then when people are also trying to get the game added as a game of the year candidate? Please... at $70 no one thinks it's one of the best games of the year. I'm just tired of all the double standards these days.

Note - Of all the games I've purchased this year this is the only one I have any regrets about, although it doesn't really bother me. Sometimes you'll get a masterpiece and other times you get an average experience, and yes if that average experience is $30 cheaper that's an added bonus.. however, it loses its luster when compared to other games in the genre in my personal opinion, that's all I'm saying. This game is a clear example of people jumping on a band wagon for all the wrong reasons other than the price, which once again is nice but lower for a reason.