Options

Rocksteady's [Suicide Squad] and WB Montreal's [Gotham Knights]

1282931333436

Posts

  • Options
    MgcwMgcw Registered User regular
    Critic and user reviews only matter if they already match my preconceived opinions.

    And as worthlessly reductive as that obviously is... it's also pretty much exactly how people operate. Either the people have spoken (if you're in agreement), sheeple who don't know any better (if you hate but they like), or reviewbombing clickbait haters (if you like but they hate).

    I don't think it's worthlessly reductive, I think it's spot on. I gave my opinion on the game not as a review but to genuinely express my feelings that it is good & fun and met my expectations for a Rocksteady game. I do not expect anyone else to share in that view but it is genuinely how I feel about it. I really do not read much on the internet anymore, I've learned that a lot of people are actually really bad at video games and do not want out of them what I want out of them, so they essentially experience a totally different game than I do and that goes for tons of different games. An example: I saw elsewhere someone link some streamer footage of someone playing this game saying it looked "bad" and the gameplay was the streamer playing very poorly. Anything is going to look bad if you're sitting there not using 90% of the mechanics.

    The game is obviously not going to do well and I'm not remotely trying to sell anyone else on it, in fact if anyone is interested in playing it you probably will not have to wait long for a sale, Diablo 4 even had a significant price drop around the holidays and that sold way better than this. Personally, I'm very happy with it.

  • Options
    cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    So, from the Kotaku review (which is mixed), the game can be played solo without feeling like anything's locked away.

    The bad news is the endgame sounds like it suuuuuuuuucks. (Final boss spoiler)
    Before the credits even rolled, as the game built toward a climactic encounter with Brainiac, I was told that, actually, there are 13 Brainiacs across the multiverse and I’ll need to kill all of them to save the day. To do this, players will need to engage in Suicide Squad’s endgame which consists of repeated missions and boss fights that award you a currency that lets you challenge new Brainiacs in different universes. When you arrive, guess what? You have to do a few more of those same missions you’ve been doing for hours and hours already before you get to fight Brainiac. Oh, and the final fight against Brainiac (spoilers) is a reskinned boss fight from earlier in the game against Flash. Womp womp. Credits roll.

    Instead of ending on a triumphant note with our squad proving they are more than just dirtbags, Suicide Squad ends by going, “You need to play for months and months to truly finish your mission. Get ready to play even more of the same shit over and over again, too.” It robs the game of a dramatic, satisfying ending and reveals its true nature to all: This is a forever game. A live-service shooter. WB and Rocksteady want you to play this game for a long time, all the while hoping you buy up skins and battle passes to make this extremely expensive bet pay off. It’s an extremely sour note to end the game on.

    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • Options
    AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    Yeah the end game is like avengers, where the game unfortunately lays down its live service roots, unfortunately at a huge cost to the story.

    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • Options
    ZavianZavian universal peace sounds better than forever war Registered User regular
    what im getting from reading feedback online is that it's a decent game but has five hours of content spread thin by copy paste missions into ten hours of content, but the story is actually better than originally thought.

    I would be interested in it at say a $30 price point, but can't see spending $60 or more on it personally

  • Options
    AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    edited February 3
    My woife loves DC and so if it becomes very cheap in future - which I have a good feeling it might - it could be worth getting just to play coop with her. Wait for them to "finish" the story at least.

    Assuming they get that far.

    Aegeri on
    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • Options
    jdarksunjdarksun Struggler VARegistered User regular
    It's darkly funny that the game's combat mechanics, story, and writing are being genuinely praised; but the combat arenas / bland missions and live service-ification takes what should have been a good game with wide appeal into niche / "meh" territory.

    The multiverse where Suicide Squad: Kill The Justice League was given the time and money it needed to Arkham-style hand craft combat encounters and let the game have an ending is, like, only a 'verse or two over.

    Maybe Warner Bros. Games will give Rocksteady Studios the time it needs to go back and improve SSKtJL. (...nah, c'mon, if it doesn't make bank WB will kill it inside of two years)

  • Options
    DragkoniasDragkonias That Guy Who Does Stuff You Know, There. Registered User regular
    edited February 3
    I mean reviews are ultimately a tool to see if you as an individual are interested in spending money on something.

    And so far every review is like "This is a decent GaaS that has some nice story bits but is pretty standard fare."

    So yeah if you're still on the GaaS train that probably works but I already hopped off that train like 5 years ago so...eh.

    Dragkonias on
  • Options
    AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    Metacritic, ever the battleground for things like this, has posted the user reviews and it's 4.6. Note that the key difference between steam and metacritic is anyone can dump a rating into metacritic, while steam requires you to actually own it first.

    So steam user reviews give an indication of what people who actually played it think - though the user rating has been trending downwards - while metacritic tells you what the general atmosphere around a game can be.

    So the 4.6 on metacritic is a reflection of how general feeling is towards GaaS games, while the better initial user reviews reflect how people who don't mind/enjoy GaaS games feel about Suicide Squad.

    It was never surviving critics.

    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • Options
    -Loki--Loki- Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining. Registered User regular
    edited February 3
    That's being generous to Steam. IIRC you can buy it, review it, and refund it. It does show play time, but the negative review is there.

    Steam does, however, at least try to combat reeview bombing.

    -Loki- on
  • Options
    AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    edited February 3
    The small barrier of having to buy it is usually enough to at least stop that. Like it's not always going to do it if people are committed to doing refunds, but it is a barrier.

    Metacritic you just dump whatever you want on it without ever having to play the game.

    Aegeri on
    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • Options
    surrealitychecksurrealitycheck lonely, but not unloved dreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered User regular
    I would be surprised if this isn't decent fun in motion like rocksteady are pretty good at doing stuff even if it's not their ideal project

    but i was quite surprised to see this was £60 its like money is losing its value thru some kind of inflationary process idk

    obF2Wuw.png
  • Options
    MgcwMgcw Registered User regular
    edited February 4
    16 hours, just got to the point where you're approaching "endgame" and having to deal with
    I dunno how much people care about this stuff but, Brainiac
    and... the missions have morphed into something more fun/challenging. I'm playing on hard. To me this feels like doing the Arkham games' Combat challenge maps, but as a 3rd person shooter. That was my favorite part of those games already, learning to master the system of the game and what it throws at you, upping your combo and doing stuff in the most efficient way possible. I especially liked playing all the different characters for the Arkham challenge maps and this game has 4 characters I find fun with 4 more coming.

    The gameplay genuinely has a lot of depth for learning to play your character and I haven't even approached the loot side of it yet, which has not hampered me at all because the loot system is not set up to make you grind for literally anything, every item is functional as soon as you pick it up and nothing gets outdated. I haven't spent any of the currency on anything yet but you can customize your stuff fairly extensively. This genuinely makes sense as a Rocksteady game, to me. Maybe I'm the only person on Earth that this game is for and I don't care. I like it a lot.

    Mgcw on
  • Options
    cooljammer00cooljammer00 Hey Small Christmas-Man!Registered User regular
    Reviews and preconceived notions don't have to be in lockstep. If anything, an outlet saying the game is actually amazing when everything indicates the game is just okay would be more intriguing.

    steam_sig.png

    3DS Friend Code: 2165-6448-8348 www.Twitch.TV/cooljammer00
    Battle.Net: JohnDarc#1203 Origin/UPlay: CoolJammer00
  • Options
    MgcwMgcw Registered User regular
    Reviews and preconceived notions don't have to be in lockstep. If anything, an outlet saying the game is actually amazing when everything indicates the game is just okay would be more intriguing.

    I don't think that's what they were saying, to me what they were saying is that many people are going to hear what they want to hear no matter where they look.

  • Options
    taliosfalcontaliosfalcon Registered User regular
    I figured I'd put my money where my mouth is and drop 25$ on an Argentina Xbox copy to activate on my VPN to try it out since I've been bad-mouthing it without trying it... I've now put about 6 hours in and it's ok. If it had launched as a 20$ game I could definitely recommend it and would rate it a solid 7.5 at full retail though..just..no I probably agree with the 5-6 reviews for that. The core combat system is actually really fun, but all the characters play identically except traversal, the skill trees change nothing about from stats and the enemies are repetitive.

    It's honestly kind of baffling to me as I'd think coming up with a good core would be the hard part and making your characters more than essentially different skins of each other would be the easy part

    steam xbox - adeptpenguin
  • Options
    tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Aegeri wrote: »
    My woife loves DC and so if it becomes very cheap in future - which I have a good feeling it might - it could be worth getting just to play coop with her. Wait for them to "finish" the story at least.

    Assuming they get that far.

    But it won't, because it's online only, if they can't charge top dollar, then they will shut it down and turn off the servers.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • Options
    AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    edited February 4
    That's why I hope their promise to patch out the online was true.

    Alternatively it ends up on the huge pile of corpses labeled "GaaS games that failed", which given the stellar performances in this game - not just Conroy - would be a genuine shame.

    Aegeri on
    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • Options
    surrealitychecksurrealitycheck lonely, but not unloved dreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered User regular
    i hear that beyond GaaS is PlaaSma
    the final form

    obF2Wuw.png
  • Options
    KrathoonKrathoon Registered User regular
    Well good thing I got that game at a really good discount.

  • Options
    KrathoonKrathoon Registered User regular
    I finally looked up GaaS. I see.

  • Options
    shoeboxjeddyshoeboxjeddy Registered User regular
    Started Gotham Knights with bro, thanks to Gamepass + Game Streaming (he's playing on ye olde Xbox One and this is still working well for him). While not to the obnoxious length of Avengers, you still have to play about an hour or so to unlock co-op, for basically no reason. Avengers was like 2 to 2.5 hours before they deigned to turn on co-op, which was laughable in its thoughtlessness. Playing it in earnest, I would describe it as "notably worse combat and movement than every Arkham game" but not completely trash. There's a decent amount of co-op QOL that other games could learn from a bit. Like giving both players a waypoint to head towards a mission AND a generic waypoint to mark a point of interest. Meanwhile, Remnant 2's map does not let you mark shit. The ability to just split up and handle complete missions separately is also nice, as fighting together is a huge advantage, while soloing cases makes the map MUCH more efficient to clear out. I also like how the characters level together, in case you realize you HATE your character after an hour or so. The graphics, which I heard not very nice things about, are actually pretty fine? I didn't like the looks of the characters from screenshots, but in motion they look fine to me and I don't hate any of the voice acting (although... any returning character from Arkham is worse, just like the combat and traversal. Like that Batman... not for me.)

    End of nice things to say, the game also crashed on me (complete, to Xbox dashboard) three times in that first night of playing. That's that Arkham Origins level of jank I do NOT appreciate them still having. And I'm playing this nearly a year after launch, really no patch for that? Having Time Trials for the traversal move is an open exhibit on how those mechanics are VERY rough, I simply would not have done that if I made a system as iffy and just okay as this. Having two (very boring) attack moves total until momentum fills up really shows how much variety and interest Arkham built into a system that sounds similar on the surface. GK has a couple of moves that are interesting (throws, co-op moves, etc) but they are universally trapped behind "The enemy is just about to die AND is not a heavy enemy" which means they're exclusively for styling and provide essentially NO combat utility. The GIGANTIC impact of Arkham hits is very lacking here when you're punching a heavy enemy in his big fat belly for minute 3 or 4. And again, the game leans into the worst thing its combat is doing RIGHT AWAY by having you fight two big fat belly guys (one with shield, who is even MORE obnoxious) as a quite early on boss fight for the Harley case. You could say "use Momentum moves to speed it up!" but... ha ha, no no no. My main, starter attack move as Batgirl requires two or even three perks to make it really viable against these guys (don't interrupt, heavy guys specifically don't interrupt, and best of all break their charge). By this point in the game, you probably will have 1 of 3 of those perks, unless you bee lined them, knowing this was coming (you did not know this was coming). There is a momentum attack specifically designed to get these guys, though... that again, is gated behind encountering a set amount of a specific enemy type, meaning you will not have it, depending on how you got to this mission. With 2 players, the fight was sluggish but very doable, with one, it could easily be a game quitter.

    I've played much worse co-op games (I feel like Avengers is still worse than this) because I just enjoy co-op games that much, but I feel like this game pretty well deserved its MEH rating received at release.

  • Options
    RaynagaRaynaga Registered User regular
    For SS, I really don't get the insistence it's Arkham-universe Canon when it clearly should have been an Elseworlds.

    The only thing I can figure is marketing.

  • Options
    klemmingklemming Registered User regular
    Raynaga wrote: »
    For SS, I really don't get the insistence it's Arkham-universe Canon when it clearly should have been an Elseworlds.

    The only thing I can figure is marketing.

    Do they actually bother to explain/handwave all the discrepancies this creates?
    (Knight spoilers, if anyone cares):
    Like, Batman faked his death, fine, we all 99% knew that already.
    Joker came back somehow, completely negating the trilogy of games dedicated to killing him off for good.
    Deadshot's black now? I'm pretty sure he wasn't black in City.

    Nobody remembers the singer. The song remains.
  • Options
    shoeboxjeddyshoeboxjeddy Registered User regular
    klemming wrote: »
    Raynaga wrote: »
    For SS, I really don't get the insistence it's Arkham-universe Canon when it clearly should have been an Elseworlds.

    The only thing I can figure is marketing.

    Do they actually bother to explain/handwave all the discrepancies this creates?
    (Knight spoilers, if anyone cares):
    Like, Batman faked his death, fine, we all 99% knew that already.
    Joker came back somehow, completely negating the trilogy of games dedicated to killing him off for good.
    Deadshot's black now? I'm pretty sure he wasn't black in City.
    Batman faked his death, then stopped caring what people thought to do JL work.
    The Joker in the game is from another world.
    The Deadshot in the game is a different person, also using that name.

  • Options
    SyphonBlueSyphonBlue The studying beaver That beaver sure loves studying!Registered User regular
    klemming wrote: »
    Raynaga wrote: »
    For SS, I really don't get the insistence it's Arkham-universe Canon when it clearly should have been an Elseworlds.

    The only thing I can figure is marketing.

    Do they actually bother to explain/handwave all the discrepancies this creates?
    (Knight spoilers, if anyone cares):
    Like, Batman faked his death, fine, we all 99% knew that already.
    Joker came back somehow, completely negating the trilogy of games dedicated to killing him off for good.
    Deadshot's black now? I'm pretty sure he wasn't black in City.
    The Joker in SS isn't the Joker from the Arkham games. It's just some fucking goober who has taken over his identity. That's why he looks so stupid.

    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • Options
    AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    edited February 5
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    klemming wrote: »
    Raynaga wrote: »
    For SS, I really don't get the insistence it's Arkham-universe Canon when it clearly should have been an Elseworlds.

    The only thing I can figure is marketing.

    Do they actually bother to explain/handwave all the discrepancies this creates?
    (Knight spoilers, if anyone cares):
    Like, Batman faked his death, fine, we all 99% knew that already.
    Joker came back somehow, completely negating the trilogy of games dedicated to killing him off for good.
    Deadshot's black now? I'm pretty sure he wasn't black in City.
    The Joker in SS isn't the Joker from the Arkham games. It's just some fucking goober who has taken over his identity. That's why he looks so stupid.

    No he is an (major SS story spoiler)
    elseworlds version. Multiverse shenanigans are the basis of the end game live service content

    Aegeri on
    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • Options
    SyphonBlueSyphonBlue The studying beaver That beaver sure loves studying!Registered User regular
    Aegeri wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    klemming wrote: »
    Raynaga wrote: »
    For SS, I really don't get the insistence it's Arkham-universe Canon when it clearly should have been an Elseworlds.

    The only thing I can figure is marketing.

    Do they actually bother to explain/handwave all the discrepancies this creates?
    (Knight spoilers, if anyone cares):
    Like, Batman faked his death, fine, we all 99% knew that already.
    Joker came back somehow, completely negating the trilogy of games dedicated to killing him off for good.
    Deadshot's black now? I'm pretty sure he wasn't black in City.
    The Joker in SS isn't the Joker from the Arkham games. It's just some fucking goober who has taken over his identity. That's why he looks so stupid.

    No he is an (major SS story spoiler)
    elseworlds version. Multiverse shenanigans are the basis of the end game live service content
    Ah yes, well he's still a different Joker and he still looks stupid as shit so my point still mostly stands

    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • Options
    AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    Look, I can't argue with that.

    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • Options
    Bloods EndBloods End Blade of Tyshalle Punch dimensionRegistered User regular
    Man, gotham knights is just this close to being a really good game. As is its fine, but with some polish the sequel could be real nice

  • Options
    LucascraftLucascraft Registered User regular
    If they kept the same four characters, dropped the loot system and went back to an Arkham style combat system with free flow combat, I think Gotham Knights would go from the 4-5 range to instantly being a 7-8 range game.

    The loot and faux looter-shooter mechanics are what are holding that game back. The enemies are too bullet spongey, and because victory in combat is based around stats and gear, rather than player skill and combos, combat is not as fluid or fun. Take out the part that is hampering fun, and rebalance the game around free flow combat and we'd have a winner.

    I really enjoyed the story of Gotham Knights, and the whole "what happens in the absence of Batman" premise. It could also use a bit of bug fixing and engine optimization to make it run better. But just in general, the game shows a lot of promise, but the loot/gear system is what's holding it back.

  • Options
    Bloods EndBloods End Blade of Tyshalle Punch dimensionRegistered User regular
    And the absolutely dire alternative costumes

  • Options
    AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    edited February 6
    So the situation looks pretty dire now. With less than a week past release, Suicide Squad has already plunged around 50% of its steam daily CCUs from around 13k to around 6-7k. Sales numbers don't seem to be impressive either, with the game not faring a lot better on consoles either. So we're at the point many of us have been worried about and I see three possibilities:

    1) The best outcome is Rocksteady get told by WB "We done fucked up forcing you to make a live service game" and they let them at least finish the story. For those of you who haven't played it or haven't read much about the story, it's grossly incomplete in the game as the "live service" element kicks in at the end. This means they still need a year or more of additional content to actually finish the games story, which isn't great. Hopefully they will be able to do that and patch in the offline mode.

    2) Most likely outcome is it straight up gets the knife by WB, but in a good outcome Rocksteady is not closed. It just joins the graveyard of failed GaaS titles.

    3) Worst outcome is the game is not only knifed, but WB shuts down Rocksteady along with it. It joins the graveyard of failed GaaS titles alongside the developer.

    Personally I hope for 1, but 2 is hopefully the most likely of the bad outcomes. If nothing else, this is going to make for some fascinating long form youtube video retrospectives as to what happened.

    Aegeri on
    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • Options
    AlphaRomeroAlphaRomero Registered User regular
    Rocksteady was dead the moment the project began, WB has wiped out entire films for less.

  • Options
    ED!ED! Registered User regular
    Some interesting hot-takes for a game that has yet to implement its live-service offerings and that seems to be doing fairly well on the Playstation.

    "Get the hell out of me" - [ex]girlfriend
  • Options
    AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    ED! wrote: »
    Some interesting hot-takes for a game that has yet to implement its live-service offerings and that seems to be doing fairly well on the Playstation.

    It wasn't even near #1 sales on playstation, where it was lagging behind Tekken 8 (which is truly terrific) and the live service stuff is due to begin in March and in GaaS time when you've already lost 50% of your playbase might as well be an eternity. Bear in mind it's not like we don't have other games to use as a direct comparison, such as Marvel Avengers that did notably better than Suicide Squad performed.

    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • Options
    urahonkyurahonky Cynical Old Man Registered User regular
    How's that track against Anthem and how long did that game last?

  • Options
    ED!ED! Registered User regular
    For sure "March" is a ways away, but at the moment, the foundational userbase - at least on Playstation - would appear to be bucking the narrative that "no one wants SS": it is in the Top 5 games of most of the markets I checked (US, UK, Canada, Germany, Mexico, France) beating Granblue and Persona 3, two games that absolutely are killing it on the PC. UK boxed sales also have it as #1. ..somehow.

    . . .all of this is to say, that the only people who truly know how well SS is doing are WB and their partners and that using PC metrics - on a weekday - for a game with this much shit going against it before it has even launched seems dubious at best. Like I have a real hard time believing anyone seriously thinks WB shitcans RS over this game (especially a game that is actually doing well with verified purchasers). That's my take at least.

    "Get the hell out of me" - [ex]girlfriend
  • Options
    AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    edited February 6
    urahonky wrote: »
    How's that track against Anthem and how long did that game last?

    It's unfortunately not possible to get a good look at how Anthem performed in comparison, because I think it was at the time EA were largely using their own launcher and so we don't have a handy steam comparison. Bear in mind that Anthem is largely regarded as a massive GaaS failure and sold five million copies, which I think Suicide Squad will be lucky to get near from the reception. Anthem lasted 15 months. Possibly another valid comparison would be Evolve, which started out with around 30kish CCUs on steam and rapidly lost most of its playerbase.

    Unfortunately, SS is trending in the way most failed GaaS games goes, which isn't particularly surprising but it does make me wonder what Warner Bros is going to do.

    Edit: To put the playstation sales of Tekken 8 into perspective vs. PC, Tekken 8, notably not a PC game had a peak of 50k players and it's daily peak 12 days after release is 27k. There is probably daylight between Tekken 8 and everything else on the PS store currently.

    Aegeri on
    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • Options
    MgcwMgcw Registered User regular
    edited February 7
    Aegeri wrote: »
    So the situation looks pretty dire now. With less than a week past release, Suicide Squad has already plunged around 50% of its steam daily CCUs from around 13k to around 6-7k. Sales numbers don't seem to be impressive either, with the game not faring a lot better on consoles either. So we're at the point many of us have been worried about and I see three possibilities:

    1) The best outcome is Rocksteady get told by WB "We done fucked up forcing you to make a live service game" and they let them at least finish the story. For those of you who haven't played it or haven't read much about the story, it's grossly incomplete in the game as the "live service" element kicks in at the end. This means they still need a year or more of additional content to actually finish the games story, which isn't great. Hopefully they will be able to do that and patch in the offline mode.

    2) Most likely outcome is it straight up gets the knife by WB, but in a good outcome Rocksteady is not closed. It just joins the graveyard of failed GaaS titles.

    3) Worst outcome is the game is not only knifed, but WB shuts down Rocksteady along with it. It joins the graveyard of failed GaaS titles alongside the developer.

    Personally I hope for 1, but 2 is hopefully the most likely of the bad outcomes. If nothing else, this is going to make for some fascinating long form youtube video retrospectives as to what happened.

    It's directly analogous to Midnight Suns. They will release the 4 extra characters they have planned/mostly done already and then literally nothing else will be added to the game. The only difference is Midnight Suns wasn't completely critically panned.

    Mgcw on
  • Options
    -Loki--Loki- Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining. Registered User regular
    Mgcw wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    So the situation looks pretty dire now. With less than a week past release, Suicide Squad has already plunged around 50% of its steam daily CCUs from around 13k to around 6-7k. Sales numbers don't seem to be impressive either, with the game not faring a lot better on consoles either. So we're at the point many of us have been worried about and I see three possibilities:

    1) The best outcome is Rocksteady get told by WB "We done fucked up forcing you to make a live service game" and they let them at least finish the story. For those of you who haven't played it or haven't read much about the story, it's grossly incomplete in the game as the "live service" element kicks in at the end. This means they still need a year or more of additional content to actually finish the games story, which isn't great. Hopefully they will be able to do that and patch in the offline mode.

    2) Most likely outcome is it straight up gets the knife by WB, but in a good outcome Rocksteady is not closed. It just joins the graveyard of failed GaaS titles.

    3) Worst outcome is the game is not only knifed, but WB shuts down Rocksteady along with it. It joins the graveyard of failed GaaS titles alongside the developer.

    Personally I hope for 1, but 2 is hopefully the most likely of the bad outcomes. If nothing else, this is going to make for some fascinating long form youtube video retrospectives as to what happened.

    It's directly analogous to Midnight Suns. They will release the 4 extra characters they have planned/mostly done already and then literally nothing else will be added to the game. The only difference is Midnight Suns wasn't completely critically panned.

    Midnight Suns is also not an always online GaaS.

    If they don't patch in their offline mode, and WB shuts the game down, all is gone.

Sign In or Register to comment.