Options

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

1293031323335»

Posts

  • Options
    shoeboxjeddyshoeboxjeddy Registered User regular
    Forbidden West possibly also sold modestly because it's just not that great. Zero Dawn is excellent, the devs then locked story content behind DLC, Forbidden West is just Zero Dawn expanded but with a weaker story and more tedious combat. It's definitely the lesser of the two games. Then the devs locked more story content behind DLC.

    Is there a reason you're describing the DLC as a "lock" instead of an expansion or continuation? That's generally how story mode DLCs work, yeah?

  • Options
    klemmingklemming Registered User regular
    How dare they make more content and then charge for the content.

    Nobody remembers the singer. The song remains.
  • Options
    KyouguKyougu Registered User regular
    Hearing lots of negative things about Season 1.

    Apparently one of your levels resets to 1, and you have to grind back up to 35, fight a reskin green lantern fight and then finally unlock Joker.

    The only cutscenes are the ones you get when you unlock Joker (seen in the trailers).

    Just big oof.

  • Options
    AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    It has bounced the population from 500 to 3000. See if it retains them or not.

    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • Options
    LucascraftLucascraft Registered User regular
    My guess is that 3000 won't last more than 2 days.

    And I also predict it will drop lower than before, because hope will die.

  • Options
    AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    I think it's back to around 580 players peak and had around 322 now.

    They are still talking about five seasons, but goodness knows if they are going to be able to last an entire year at this point.

    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • Options
    emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    Aegeri wrote: »
    They are still talking about five seasons, but goodness knows if they are going to be able to last an entire year at this point.

    This talk of planned support reminded me of Anthem and it's easy to notice some similarities. Warner Bros. is not EA but they both are big publishers and big publishers will support their game right up to the point they stop supporting their game.
    May 2019 wrote:
    The studio's support and commitment to Anthem HAS. NOT. CHANGED.
    June 2019 wrote:
    The game's roadmap has been scrapped in favor of seasonal updates.

    https://screenrant.com/bioware-anthem-roadmap-changes-seasonal-updates/
    Anthem received lots of criticism upon release, and the bulk of those complaints centered around the game's forced grinding and loot system which, when coupled with frequent glitches and a lackluster story, led to a boorish and repetitive experience for players.

  • Options
    klemmingklemming Registered User regular
    [GAME] received lots of criticism upon release, and the bulk of those complaints centered around the game's forced grinding and loot system which, when coupled with frequent glitches and a lackluster story, led to a boorish and repetitive experience for players.

    I feel like this sentence could be pre-emptively added to the wiki entry for 90% of live-service games and not be removed.

    Nobody remembers the singer. The song remains.
  • Options
    AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    Lucascraft wrote:
    My guess is that 3000 won't last more than 2 days.

    And I also predict it will drop lower than before, because hope will die.

    You sure called it. Game has dropped below 500 players and is only averaging around 320.

    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • Options
    cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    https://youtu.be/Y50b8yo9SHU?si=eSjTRB5kjdzgLVRO

    Lengthy and detailed rundown of this thing's development and reception, up to What Happened's usual standards (other than the fact that, unsurprisingly, he couldn't get many developers to talk about it).

    Apparently before this, Rocksteady was working on a Damian Wayne game in a semi-apocalyptic Gotham City?

    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • Options
    AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    That Damian Wayne game was going to have the woefully underused nemesis system as well. What a tremendous shame.

    We're now regularly under 100 players as well.

    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • Options
    LucascraftLucascraft Registered User regular
    YongYea posted a video a couple days ago, with the headline that SS:KtJL has less people playing it than the actually dead Marvel's Avengers game. (Per Steamcharts).

    I didn't know that was possible. Does Marvel's Avengers have an offline mode or something?

  • Options
    Brainiac 8Brainiac 8 Don't call me Shirley... Registered User regular
    I do feel for those who enjoyed this game and for Rocksteady as I'm sure some of how this game turned out was forced on them by WB. But I couldn't be happier that this live service piece of cynical dreck is doing about as good as I predicted it would.

    I really hope that this failure doesn't shutter Rocksteady, but I trust WB about as far as I can throw them.

    3DS Friend Code - 1032-1293-2997
    Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
    PSN - Brainiac_8
    Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
    Add me!
  • Options
    klemmingklemming Registered User regular
    Lucascraft wrote: »
    YongYea posted a video a couple days ago, with the headline that SS:KtJL has less people playing it than the actually dead Marvel's Avengers game. (Per Steamcharts).

    I didn't know that was possible. Does Marvel's Avengers have an offline mode or something?

    I think they said they were going to add one, but I think all devs twitter feeds are set to auto-generate that statement in response to tweets that contain certain keywords like 'always online', no idea if they actually followed through.

    Nobody remembers the singer. The song remains.
  • Options
    shoeboxjeddyshoeboxjeddy Registered User regular
    Lucascraft wrote: »
    YongYea posted a video a couple days ago, with the headline that SS:KtJL has less people playing it than the actually dead Marvel's Avengers game. (Per Steamcharts).

    I didn't know that was possible. Does Marvel's Avengers have an offline mode or something?

    It is my understanding that Avengers was never taken offline, so if you own it, you can still play it? This is different from a situation like The Crew.

  • Options
    AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    Yeah it was removed from sale, but I think the server is still functional?

    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • Options
    LucascraftLucascraft Registered User regular
    I'm curious how other recent live services are faring. Foamstars released on PS5 within just a week or two +/- the release of SS:KtJL. Is that game still alive? Does anyone play it? Nobody online is talking about it. That game seems to be a low-profile failure, where SS is definitely a high-profile failure.

  • Options
    Brainiac 8Brainiac 8 Don't call me Shirley... Registered User regular
    It's still pretty easy to find a game of Foamstars on the PS5 as a buddy of mine loves that game so I play it periodically with him. Not a fan of it either and how the live service stuff is shoved in your face to try and get you to spend money on it, but at least it was free so I can safely ignore the rest of that garbage.

    3DS Friend Code - 1032-1293-2997
    Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
    PSN - Brainiac_8
    Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
    Add me!
  • Options
    cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    Forget live service games, it's getting hard for any console game to break through nowadays. From a recent study:
    Newzoo’s data shows that the top 10 games on each platform (ranked by their average number of monthly active users, or MAU) are filled with old, established titles. Fortnite took the crown on all platforms, including Switch and PC. The rest of the lists included titles that won’t surprise you, like Grand Theft Auto V, Counter-Strike 2, Roblox, Minecraft, Rocket League, Apex Legends, Fall Guys, Valorant, and Call of Duty. Across Xbox and Playstation consoles, only one dedicated single-player game cracked the top ten: Starfield.

    To further prove that gamers are primarily focused on older games, Newzoo’s data shows that just 66 titles accounted for 80 percent of all playtime in 2023. And 60 percent of that playtime was spent in games that are six years old or older. In fact, in 2023, five old games—Fortnite, Roblox, League of Legends, Minecraft, and GTA V—accounted for 27% of all playtime in the year.

    It gets worse. Of the 23 percent of playtime spent in 2023 on new games—defined as 2 years or younger—more than half was spent in big annual sequels like the latest Madden or NBA game. Only 8 percent of video game playtime was spent on new, non-annual titles like Diablo IV or Baldur’s Gate III.

    It's not impossible for another online game to break through (hello, Helldivers 2), but given the deathgrip these games have on the market, dumping money into a new AAA live service game is the definition of insanity.

    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • Options
    VontreVontre Registered User regular
    What do you mean any console game? A playtime metric is going to bias insanely hard toward online live-service games.

  • Options
    cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    I mean, if all your time is spent playing an infinite live-service game, you're not going to pick up anything else. Even other live service games. Making a gigantic expensive one an extreme risk.

    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • Options
    VontreVontre Registered User regular
    That is not how any of this works. There are a lot of different customer bases.

  • Options
    cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    edited April 30
    Yes, there are a lot of different customer bases. And nothing is necessarily dying. But as much as we wish it rather wouldn't, things are gradually shifting. Don't forget, the vast majority of the video game market ain't us.

    cloudeagle on
    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • Options
    DemonStaceyDemonStacey TTODewback's Daughter In love with the TaySwayRegistered User regular
    edited May 1
    I mean gaming's the best it's ever been for me. So things seem to be pretty ok.

    DemonStacey on
  • Options
    cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    Like I said, nothings dying. Games are still coming out. There is no doom. But things are shifting.

    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • Options
    VontreVontre Registered User regular
    No like this wild tangent started because you claimed that it was getting harder for new console games to break through, which is probably slightly true in the sense that console games have been a mature industry for *decades*, and then linked some absolutely irrelevant study data about playtime hours. The bold revelation that Minecraft and Roblox account for a huge percentage of hours of played on consoles is one of the least surprising things in the history of ever. It's also extremely unhelpful; percentage slices of pies are dumb metrics when the size of the pie is wildly variable. Also, hours played is not even remotely the same thing as customer base size, or revenue. People have been talking about the unsustainability of AAA game budgets for at least 20 years. Most of Roblox's customers didn't even *exist* that far back. So what does it all mean? Well, nothing.

    Live service fatigue is a relatively new idea and more interesting, but I've more just been hearing rumblings about it and less hard data. What we've seen over the years is an enduring interest in high quality box titles, and that's great. You can also make a very good business selling a new Marvel movie every few years, you do not actually need daily customer engagement to maintain demand.

    By the way I find it hilarious that Square-Enix and Microsoft are the example studios brought up here, two old legacy devs that have been stumbling around for years and failing to develop high quality products. Absolutely hilarious that Phil Spencer says making good games wouldn't matter to their core business (???), like they expect people to buy XBoxes because it really accentuates the shelf space or something. Maybe it has a really nice Bluray player. Anyway it's almost kind of encouraging that they are leaving space for competitive new studios to take their place, more of a good sign tbh. Consolidation is bad.

  • Options
    AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    Yeah I see your point Vontre, because the big assumption at the heart of these things is that single player games should somehow be competing for hours with live service multiplayer games that you play constantly. I think that's a pretty dumb assumption and it doesn't mean the impending death of the industry because some rare games have hit the formulae for long term retention of players (EG Fortnite). I generally get annoyed with any game that takes me over 60 hours and by 80-100 I'm usually done with them. Only turn based games like the excellent Age of Wonders 4 usually buck that trend for me.

    One of the few games I've played over 100 hours and am at nearly 150 is Helldivers 2. It's pretty much perfect and if WB are going to continue trashing their IP with live service stuff, they could at least learn from that.

    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • Options
    jdarksunjdarksun Struggler VARegistered User regular
    I mean, I've played almost 100 hours of Balatro (I've had a lot of travel recently, don't judge me :joy:).

    ~20 hour AAA games can absolutely be successful. But there are metrics we can use to track how successful these games are in the moment; like, concurrent player count. Fallout 4 and Stardew Valley are both in the Steam Top 10 right now; hours played for those games don't make a whole lot of difference, and neither are live services. But looking at concurrent players over time, we can see how much trending usage these games have (and that both have had a player spike in the last few months).

    So like, sure. Hours logged isn't the ultimate metric. But we can get a sense of "success" from other metrics.

  • Options
    AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    Yeah like a single player game having a peak of 311,000 and going to like, 200 or whatever doesn't matter a damn. Minding, it's still impressive that Baldurs Gate 3, which I just checked, is an all time of 875,000 players and is currently at ~78,000 daily peak users. That's crazy, but also it wouldn't matter if hardly anyone was playing it because it doesn't *need* long term retention of players whatsoever.

    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • Options
    jdarksunjdarksun Struggler VARegistered User regular
    ...also it wouldn't matter if hardly anyone was playing it because it doesn't *need* long term retention of players whatsoever.
    But like... not entirely, right? Because some portion of those folk are new to the game, because the game doesn't have a 100% retention rate over time. So some folk are dropping off, some folk are buying it new. So those numbers over time are relevant, at least in terms of some +/- of new people picking up the game. And the game itself retaining popularity is good for that game's popularity; people playing a thing means more people playing a thing.

    Let's talk about Fallout 4 and Cyberpunk 2077, which are two single player only games. I was going to include Elden Ring, but it's not strictly single player.

    Fallout 4: Released in Nov '15, peak player count of ~472k, down to ~60k within 3 months, averaged 20-30k players for years until this new spike where it popped back up to 187k.

    Cyberpunk 2077: Similar story. Released in Dec '20, 1mil+ players at release, down to ~22k in four months. Hovered mostly around 20-30k (except for a blip up to 136k in Sept '22), spent a couple months at 250-275k in Sept '23 and is now hovering around 50k players.

    FO4 is a ~30 hour game. CP2k77 is ~50 hours. If you go completionist, you can stretch that out to 100+ hours. But we're still seeing 20-30k+ people playing this games, every month, for years on end (and just on Steam).

    Which is to say; I don't think it's wrong to say that "things are changing." There aren't that many "single player / strongly narrative" games currently being played on Steam, and none came out recently (though Dragon's Dogma 2 is in the Top 105). It's like... only 10-15%? of these games aren't multiplayer, or emergent, or having some sort of rogue-like element (eg, not fixed story) to them.

    FF16 had three million sales on launch week... and Helldivers 2 rocked something like 5-8 million (nearly 500k concurrent players on Steam alone)...

    It doesn't seem like a stretch to say "things are changing." Or maybe they already changed, and the bar for "single player / strongly narrative" games has become much, much higher.

  • Options
    cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    I'm not sure what's wrong with the logic? Overall video game engagement hours are staying about the same, based on studies. Perpetual games are taking up more and more of that engagement. That means there's areas that are losing engagement hours. And, for premium games, less engagement can translate to less sales. We're seeing less and less big AAA releases as the years go on, and some old guard in particular is struggling. I mean, Squeenix tried a strategy of releasing loads more premium games, and it absolutely didn't work. Granted they were generally considered to be "meh." Though a AAA or AA meh game could wind up selling reasonably well a decade ago, it's much less likely for a meh game to succeed now.

    Then again dispassionately saying a game didn't sell well can angry people's blood up around here.

    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • Options
    DemonStaceyDemonStacey TTODewback's Daughter In love with the TaySwayRegistered User regular
    jdarksun wrote: »
    ...also it wouldn't matter if hardly anyone was playing it because it doesn't *need* long term retention of players whatsoever.
    But like... not entirely, right? Because some portion of those folk are new to the game, because the game doesn't have a 100% retention rate over time. So some folk are dropping off, some folk are buying it new. So those numbers over time are relevant, at least in terms of some +/- of new people picking up the game. And the game itself retaining popularity is good for that game's popularity; people playing a thing means more people playing a thing.

    Let's talk about Fallout 4 and Cyberpunk 2077, which are two single player only games. I was going to include Elden Ring, but it's not strictly single player.

    Fallout 4: Released in Nov '15, peak player count of ~472k, down to ~60k within 3 months, averaged 20-30k players for years until this new spike where it popped back up to 187k.

    Cyberpunk 2077: Similar story. Released in Dec '20, 1mil+ players at release, down to ~22k in four months. Hovered mostly around 20-30k (except for a blip up to 136k in Sept '22), spent a couple months at 250-275k in Sept '23 and is now hovering around 50k players.

    FO4 is a ~30 hour game. CP2k77 is ~50 hours. If you go completionist, you can stretch that out to 100+ hours. But we're still seeing 20-30k+ people playing this games, every month, for years on end (and just on Steam).

    Which is to say; I don't think it's wrong to say that "things are changing." There aren't that many "single player / strongly narrative" games currently being played on Steam, and none came out recently (though Dragon's Dogma 2 is in the Top 105). It's like... only 10-15%? of these games aren't multiplayer, or emergent, or having some sort of rogue-like element (eg, not fixed story) to them.

    FF16 had three million sales on launch week... and Helldivers 2 rocked something like 5-8 million (nearly 500k concurrent players on Steam alone)...

    It doesn't seem like a stretch to say "things are changing." Or maybe they already changed, and the bar for "single player / strongly narrative" games has become much, much higher.

    That's still not actually enough data to say very much.

    The new sales during that time would be telling. But the concurrent players doesn't say much besides something causing a surge(in this case it's usually big new patches and related TV shows). Which absolutely can/will cause more sales. But also causes a large amount of players to come back. Those players aren't necessarily spending any more money. But more money was spent to keep working on an updating that game.

    Those are also examples of the kind of single player games that players are more likely to keep playing and coming back to over a long period of time. And on PC popular games to mod and keep getting more gameplay out of without spending more money. Not every single player game is that kind of game. And the amount of hours individual players play a game doesn't change the profit. You spend $70 and play Ratchet and Clank for 15 hours or you spend $70 and play Elder Scrolls for 4,000 hours playing new characters and downloading new mods but you have paid the same in either case.

    People love to extrapolate all sorts of information from incomplete or sometimes only tangentially related data.

    And sometimes that extrapolation can end up being correct! But the things that matter are the budget, the sales, and the incredibly important part that gets ignored for the sake of making crazy comparisons: the target. Because my gods do people love to compare sales between games with vastly different budgets and targets to say something did poorly.

Sign In or Register to comment.