God of War: Ragnarök Sales Top 11 Million Units, Fastest-Selling 1st-Party PlayStation Game - SalesWilliam D'Angelo , posted on 01 February 2023 / 5,504 Views
Publisher Sony Interactive Entertainment and developer Santa Monica Studio announced God of War: Ragnarök has now sold over 11 million units worldwide.
The figure is up from 5.1 million units sold in its launch week in November 2022.
"We’re incredibly humbled that God of War: Ragnarök has officially sold through 11 million copies!" reads a tweet from Sony Santa Monica. "None of this would be possible without the support of our fans, so thank you for coming on this journey with us!"
God of War: Ragnarök continues to be the fastest-selling PlayStation Studios title ever.
The official PlayStation Twitter account added, "Congrats to [Santa Monica Studio] for God of War Ragnarök continuing to be PlayStation Studios fastest-selling title ever."
God of War: Ragnarök launched for PlayStation 5 and PlayStation 4 on November 9.
Congrats to @SantaMonica for God of War Ragnarök continuing to be PlayStation Studios fastest-selling title ever. https://t.co/e01igWz23O— PlayStation (@PlayStation) February 1, 2023
A life-long and avid gamer, William D'Angelo was first introduced to VGChartz in 2007. After years of supporting the site, he was brought on in 2010 as a junior analyst, working his way up to lead analyst in 2012 and taking over the hardware estimates in 2017. He has expanded his involvement in the gaming community by producing content on his own YouTube channel and Twitch channel. You can contact the author on Twitter @TrunksWD.
I expected it to sell 10mil by end of December, so this feels right. Awesome to have confirmation. Beastly sales. Trying to remember Elden Ring’s sales. Think it sold 12mil after 1mo? Has sold quicker certainly than GoWR, but GoWR selling this much on only one current gen system is quite impressive.
1 out of every 3 PS5 owners has this game.
It's less than that. this is 11 million PS4 + PS5.
The vast majority of sales are on PS5, at the time of this article it was accurate to say 1 / 3 of PS5 owners have this game.
Further lending credence to the idea that day and date additions to Plus are both ridiculous and counter to the profitability of the company.
I don't see how it's bad? They are offering a service. You either want it or you don't. If Sony tried to force people into the sub I would agree. They aren't though. They simply offer it to people and are very upfront about what you get and then you can make a decision from there. Just because MS has decided to do it a different way doesn't mean that anyone who doesn't do it their way is bad now.
Some could say Microsoft attempting to double the price of gold in an attempt to force people into GP was pretty bad. They only backed off because of the massive backlash they received. Some could even argue that MS was pushed into doing something so ridiculous and anti-consumer like that because of the promise they made to offer all their titles day 1. Some could even say they pushed out Halo Infinite with less options than other Halo games had because of this day 1 on GP service.
I agree that doubling the price of gold was bad. I think all the console makers are guilty of anti consumer practices.
Its bad because its just milking people for money, they know that fans will pay for the service and those very same fans will pay full price for first part games at launch (which they already increased the price of). Its a similar issue I had with the 1x/pro/new3ds they were made specifically to target people who already owned the console rather than bring in new people like the slim,dslite etc.
How offering a product you want for the price they had already announced is milking a customer? MTX sure you can make this type of claim, yearly releases with low addition you can also complain, but a game sold at full price and not gave away for free that is hardly milking.
Increasing the price of games, then adding a subscription service which doesn't have these games at launch is definitely milking in my eyes. If the subscription was cheaper I wouldn't mind so much. You can disagree if you want, it just doesn't sit well with me personally.
Increase of price is effect of inflation and increase of production cost and have been stablished 2.5 years ago. The subscription is like 15 years old and mandatory for online for like 10 years and for this game unnecessary. Sony said time and again they won't do day and date, you are trying to push something just because it is what you want.
The whole inflation production cost argument has been debunked long ago. Because of the increase in online sales. Sony make money off of every game sold on there store, plus money made from dlc and microtransactions, Plus add on the fact that games are selling better than ever, Plus the money made from ps plus. Anyway I said that in MY OPINION it doesn't sit well with ME. If you're ok with it that's fine, but I am entitled to my opinion.
How exactly?. If someone is paying for the top subscription service they should be entitled to play them games day and date. No reason sony cant do this same as EA, Ubisoft and Ms etc do. No need to be greedy or is the any need for fans to try make excuses for why they cant for a company, you enjoy paying full price for all games you do you. for others who like to use subs like a rental service like we had years ago the is also no harm in that. if you like the game enough and want to keep it than them users can still buy it. and trust me Sony will follow that path of the others sooner than later.
Who made you the authority on how a subscription service should work or not? Sony will do what works for them, just like any other company. Maybe they will follow suit in time, maybe not. At the moment, they don't have to offer tons of "free" games to get people on their platform, because they can produce games that people want to actually pay for, unlike Microsoft.
I agree with zero here.
Sony should drop console prices to match the fact that MS doesn't, and won't, raise theirs because these giant corporations can afford to simply, eat, all, costs, when it comes to hardware.
MS has mastered business and knows there's no reason to be greedy like Sony. That's why you'll never hear MS warn consumers of things like upcoming price hikes.
Yep, they should take classes with zero, azz, MS and others on how to be successful on console market, they truly are struggling =p
I dont understand. The xbox series has just been announced to have a price hike in Japan. But you'll never hear MS warn consumers about price hikes?
He was being sarcastic.
And very bad at it since his post has nothing to do with what i posted up above. How does offering Day and Date games day 1 on the highest PS+ sub have anything to do with what he typed?.
Your post has nothing to do with what i typed up above.
Top subs should be entitled to a free console. You and MS are being greedy by wanting them to pay for the hardware, which is now even increasing in price. Talk about sleazy.
Well you know Phone company do do that?, they allow you to buy say 1200€ phone on a contract for so many months and the cost includes the price of the phone broke down into how many months that contract is. Thats not something new and your still not getting the phone for free your breaking the cost down. Now i am not saying console company's should do this (I think MS does?), but they could if they wanted and like i said your still getting nothing for free.
Same way with subs. In all your little what you think is a smart reply can you play your PS+ sub games without a sub?. No? well than your paying to play them = not free...
You're focusing on the wrong word. Not free. Entitled.
What entitles (top) subs to day 1 titles? Don't those games cost money to make? Wouldn't they add cost to the sub fee? Shouldn't top subs then be entitled to a console as well? How else are they going to play those games?
XB All Access isn't a tier of Game Pass, yet does include it, which is weird. It should just be a higher tier of Game Pass.
MS charges $35 per month for Series X All Access when Game Pass Ultimate is only $15 per month. Why the increased cost? Does the hardware cost money?
If PS were to actually offer day 1, odds are good it would belong to a new tier above Premium. With XB Ultimate being $180 per year, an even higher PS top tier would likely be $200 bare minimum, but probably $250. I can see why Sony wouldn't bother because for certain people that still wouldn't be good enough because it would be, too expensive and greedy, as certain people say.
Nobody is entitled to anything. Sony and MS offer and charge whatever they decide to, and consumers pay for what they choose to buy.
Your the one that kept using the word "Free" I was pointing out your not getting them for "Free" . You still didnt answer me. If they are "Free" as you say can you still play your PS+ games without a sub?.
I said free only once. I also said entitled once. Entitled was also said before free.
That's not what you asked. You asked if I could play my PS Plus sub games without a Plus sub.
The answer is obviously no because you need a sub to play the games available with the sub, and the sub costs money.
If you want more services or more games, then you pay more for a higher tier sub.
If you wanted PS AAA day 1, you'd have to pay like $200 - $250 per year for that.
A lot of xbox fans call GP games free.
Honestly i dont understand how anyone can call anything they have to subscribe to as free. What Epic games does giving away games each week thats free. If a user has to pay to play them games even if its a small amount to me thats not free.
I do agree, doesn't matter if it is PS+/GoG that you "keep forever" as long as you have an active sub or if it is the rental of the game until it is on the service, it isn't free, at most it is a lot cheaper than buying standalone.
Yep 100% agree. I never understood the mind frame of "im playing this game on a sub service so its free" type of thinking. Your sub ends the game ends.
Incredible numbers when its only available on one platform whereas elden ring has 3 platforms to reach 12 mil!
I don't want to poo poo the accomplishment, but isn't the gow PS5 bundle the only reliable way to get a PS5? So there are probably some people who bought the game just to get a PS5 during the holidays because it was the only one available.
Bracing for impact. But I really am just asking an honest question.
You are so late to the party. UK news guy already debunked it. The title is selling well because it is selling well not because of bundles. This have been a silly argument in VGC for 3 gens already as if people were obligated to buy a bundle with a game they don't want.
Ok. That's why I asked.
I would say that even if we were to be very exaggerated it would be like 1M of the sales as bundle. The UK guy was something like less than 5% of the sales.
Awesome numbers. I am though torn by this game. Play it continually for a few days and it's enjoyable, the gameplay and graphics are stunning. Put it down for a few weeks or so and it's a real real struggle to get back into it.
I don't feel it's the sort of game you can play for 30mins then put down for a couple of days/weeks and play again for 30mins. I do love the series story and design, perhaps though its the realities of life (family) and pressures on time (work) but I'm afraid it is one which when I see it on my dashboard of my ps5 I tend to avoid. I'm sure if I had endless time I'd have a different opinion but that's the reality for me. Not a popular opinion I'm sure and it's actually have to say it.
I know I wanted to play tip to tail in a marathon so I can understand how you feel. For the 30min session a day I prefer gran turismo type of game.
Am not trying to slate these sales but am a little shocked its so low as over here in the uk this was bundled with every ps5 n you couldn’t buy one without a game for so long and even know if you check on places like Argos or smyths toys playstation 5 is sold out. But the bundle with this game is in stock in the 10s
Classic way of starting a contradictory phrase with a lot of backhanded compliments.
How could you consider 11 million sales low. Most games would love to sell that lifetime
Doesn’t deserve to sell more than 2018 GoW because 2018 was a better game,
I get why it did due to the expectations that it would be better overall, but sadly it was not better overall.
Atreus sections were all really boring & took way too long. Excessive amounts of backtracking & traversal. Too much filler. Dev’s were obsessed with story telling, which badly wrecked the gameplay pacing……and much more.
Variety of enemies & mini bosses were enjoyable. Even if the best boss fights were better in GoW 2018.
Absolutely agreed. 2018 was much better and much of Ragnaröks sales is due to 2018 being so good. Gampelay is still great because largely just refined. But the story was shoddy at best.
I don't see a single point where Ragnarok is inferior to 2018. The most I could accept is that I didn't like to play as Atreus, but on the other hand it added variety to combat.
I agree to an extent, it feels like for every aspect that was better in ragnarok there was something else that was worse. Graphics better story worse, combat better, pacing worse.
Pacing has become an increasingly big issue in a lot of modern AAA games. I know that pacing is rarely going to be perfect in a long game but it just seems to be getting significantly worse recently.
Kratos, Atreus, Odin - their decisions in this game are abolutely baffling. Gameplay was great. Story was meandering, illogical, unoriginal. Action was boring. The final act felt like a rushed, incomplete compromise. That this game sells so much so fast sends the wrong message to playstation. I bought it day one because of the 2018 game. Regrettable.
We have seem your thread don't worry.
Heh, alright, it is somewhat reassuring to know that I get the message out there.
How can they portray Kratos in the light they do, even though he does what he does in the final act? That is not at all what good gods would do. He is just as bad as Odin, if not worse.
I don't think the portrayal of Kratos was to be of a good person even in the new myth. He have improved a lot, but he isn't a good two shoes.
No, that is hardly my point. I get that Kratos is no goody two shoes. [SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS] But the entirety of Asgard destroyed, just because he wanted Odin dead? That is too much for the new Kratos who proudly announces: today we will be better. And the fact that 5 minutes in, he even changes his mind about Ragnarök, that makes him just dumb. Tells me that he makes world altering decisions on a whim. Does not fit at all with the stoic thinker Santa Monica was going for.
From all we know from within the game there was 2 options, either all other realms destroyed or just Asgard. On the first Odin intention would be to let all other die, in the second even Asgardian were allowed to keep living. So I hardly see that as problematic as you see. And we also don't even know if it is destroyed beyond repair or if it is temporarily impossible to live there.
I get your second point: We don't actually know how Asgard is doing. But from the giant pieces of it landing in other realms, I wont say too hot. I bet countless people and animals died.
To your first point about there being only two options, namely the destruction of all other realms or just Asgard: I don't get it. Who ever talked about the destruction of all the realms but Asgard? As I see it, there was the option for Kratos to ask Surtr for help, and him than becoming the Ragnarök monster. Or not do that. Kratos did and Asgard was destroyed. If Kratos did not do that, everything else could have played out exactly the same: the wall coming down, the snake being hammered back in time, Thor losing to Kratos, and the good guys defeating Odin. Only this time they have an actual claim for the title "good guys", since they did not bring the end of the world for the whole population of Asgard.
-How was that not an option?
Yep most likely it is very damaged and plenty of people, animal and flora have perished.
From the mythos and prophecies saw in the game the intent of Odin was that only Asgard survived and that theoretically Ragnarok would destroy everything. I don't remember seeing an option that was just leave Odin be and nothing bad will happen or being able to destroy Odin with no other loss for anyone, war isn't ideal.
War is not ideal, but it is certainly shaped by the decisions key players make. And Kratos decided to bring Ragnarök to Asgard. Only to realise 5 minutes in Asgard that it was a bad idea. Nobody can spin this into good story telling. Either Kratos had a stroke and did not for one second think of the implications. Or some secret destruction magic compelled him to do it against his will. Or it is just bad writing: Kratos just kind of forgot about consequences and stuff.
I am not saying that there was such an option in the game that the player could have chosen, like: do / don't destroy Asgard. That is why I am not saying that you played the game wrong. I am saying that the writing was weak.
And I don't remember a prophecy saying that Odin's intent was for everything but Asgard getting destroyed. Or a prophecy saying anything else about Odin's intent actually.
I remember it more with lack of opinions, if leaving Odin for his own devices all realms would fall apart and besides saving Atreus/Revenge he considered that as its only remaining option. But won't say I can't be wrong and that either they could have told the story better to reach that conclusion or offer a different option/end.