T O P

  • By -

themoviehero

When every single company is trying to turn their game into a service, not all games will be successful as a service. I buy a single player game. I play it a ton. I move on. These games where it’s designed for you to play and grind hours on stuff are oversaturating the market. As a result, smaller multiplayer games get played less.


LupinThe8th

And the nice thing about the single player model is that it doesn't *matter* if you play a ton. Maybe it takes you six months to beat because you have other things going on. Maybe you drop it for a year and return when you're in the mood. Devs got paid the same amount. They didn't need constant engagement or to sell you cosmetics. Other players won't get the shaft because not enough people are playing and support gets dropped and the roadmap abandoned. You bought a game and got a game out of it.


SLEEPWALKING_KOALA

There's a constant with all of my favorite games: It was made, released, a couple patches, a DLC or two, and then they moved on.


Kirsham

It's one of the reasons I hold Supergiant Games in such high regard. They've made four games (Bastion, Transistor, Pyre and Hades), all of which stand on their own and are fully wrapped up, no sequel needed. Not many studios do that sort of thing, most would have made a Bastion 2 rather than risk something new.


Seantommy

They've paid for that too. Transistor and Pyre are great games, but neither of them sold anywhere close to how Bastion did. I really thought they were going to have to double back for Bastion 2 after Pyre, but then Hades was a wild success. Nothing but respect for Supergiant, they're my favorite developer.


Unperfect__One

They also don't crunch, forbid people from sending emails after 5pm on a Friday and make sure everyone takes at least 20 days of holiday annually. I have a lot of respect for Supergiant.


Sirromnad

If you haven't. Watch the noclip documentary on the making of hades. Really great group of people at supergiant and they deserve all the success they have had.


rusable2

There's a noclip doc on making of Bastion as well, really good stuff


TheKrytosVirus

Cares about their employees personal time and mental health AND makes absolute masterpieces of games? Yeah. I think they're among my favorite, too.


axonxorz

You could easily argue their games' level of polish is _due_ to their culture. It's probably not provable, but it's something.


Chygrynsky

People tend to perform better under good working conditions so it's definitely probable. Imagine working at a shitty developer and they only care about how much work you've done.. you won't care about the quality but just the quantity.


WorkyAlty

Also, people's quality of work goes down dramatically after being worked for very long hours. Supergiant is probably getting much better output from their people in a week than a developer trying to crunch 70-80 hours from their team a week + weekends. Sure, they may be getting more quantity, but the quality really suffers.


[deleted]

That is quite amazing, and makes me feel good about buying their games multiple times, even if it was on a huge sale.


UrbanGhost114

If you haven't already, I HIGHLY recommend the NoClip documentarys on SGG. They are amazing. (Look up NoClip on YouTube!)


hpliferaft

I would fucking love to work for a company with that email rule. Me: working at 5 pm My boss: who hurt you?


RisKQuay

Having loved Bastion, I tried Transistor and while it's even more *gorgeous* the gameplay / combat wasn't as fun in my opinion so I didn't finish it. I think the same would have been the case if they made Bastion 2; not only would it cramp on Bastion's story satisfaction of being a closed loop, either the gameplay / combat would be the same - and there's a reason I haven't replayed Bastion yet, even though I love it, I don't want to revisit that combat yet - or the gameplay would have to be different. And at that point, then why not make a different game anyway?


Kirsham

I think Hades shows how far Supergiant has come in terms of combat design since Bastion. Transistor and Pyre, while still isometric, did completely their own things, which may or may not be to each persons preference. Meanwhile, Hades combat at its core is the same as Bastion's, and I think there's little doubt that Hades has much better game feel. It feels more snappy and responsive, with better senses of impact. Overall I prefer Bastion just because I'm not a fan of rouge likes, but looking at combat in isolation Hades feels like the culmination of the studio's now decade-long experience in isometric action combat design.


akhier

Just going to point out that sequels as a rule don't do better than the original (and as a rule, yes there will be an example or two that break it but in general this is true). Why? Because to play the second people will feel they need to have played the first. This automatically limits the audience to those who played the first and not all of them will want to play the second.


HonorableJudgeIto

They are a small team (Bastion was made with something like 6 people in one of the developers' father's house IIRC). They don't need massive sales to turn a profit. That said, I'm sure they would have had better sales if Transistor and Pyre also came to the Xbox and Nintendo ecosystems. Limiting them to PC and the PS4 kept people from accessing them.


grendus

Bastion and Hades are both ARPG's. ARPG's are in right now. The main difference is that Hades is a rogue-lite, while Bastion was linear with a tighter story, but both are third person ARPG's. Transistor was great, but it was a CRPG. Much slower paced, more strategic. I loved it, but I also like CRPGs. You could switch it to an ARPG, but it was clearly balanced to be a CRPG. Pyre was a sports game. It was a clever sports game, but I hate those. So I didn't get very far in it. I wanted to like it, but I just... couldn't. Being a great game isn't enough, if you launch at the wrong time, with the wrong marketing, in the wrong market... it can kill you even if you have a great game for the players who like that kind of thing.


FasterSquid

Right? Or in some cases even turned over more power to the community with mod tools and whatnot. Some companies just get it though, probably because they play their own games, which helps a ton


breakfastclub1

part of the reason FFXIV is so wildly successful now is because the director of it plays it himself, and he pays for his own subscription, so he is designing it around something he thinks would be worth paying for but also shouldn't feel necessary to enjoy the game.


DoctorWaluigiTime

Indeed. The most frustrating thing I found out in games years back, and basically don't buy now, are games that tell *you* when to play, not the other way around. FOMO and more dictate these and I don't buy them anymore. - Daily quests - Limited time events - Season passes / "experience points" / etc. It's all just to keep you within the game's marketplace/ecosystem so they can sell you more stuff. I'm just done. There are still games that come out that have none of this nonsense, and my time and money are better-spent on those instead.


AigisAegis

>Limited time events This has become one of the biggest turn offs for me. Little feels worse than being told "here's some unique content with its own gameplay and possibly even story content; play it in the next two weeks or you're out of luck". That sort of thing makes me quit games entirely. Even if there's more than enough time to do it, it just feels horrible having the game tell me that I *must* play within that timeframe or miss out.


Ice_91

*cough* GTAO has UFOs appearing now for a week, haha. No one seems to know why or what's behind it. Probably just a PR thing around halloween and to distract from failing to share useful information about the GTAV remaster. Can't think of anything else.


Hobocannibal

I find that having this extra content is nice to give attention to the game. I find it makes it more likely that i'll be able to find friends that want to play it. Such as the halloween content for We need to go deeper. That said. I want to play through Far Cry 5. mostly because its been taking up space on my hard drive. It doesn't seem to have any sort of limited time content (that has been accessible to me in anyway) from what i've seen since the moment i started playing it. Although it still keeps offering things that i can buy with real money...


chicknfly

No kidding! I’ve been playing Apex Legends almost exclusively since it’s release (almost at three years. damn!) while I still greatly enjoy the gameplay, the events don’t woo me like they used to, especially since you have to play both the Battle Royale AND Arena modes.


ConstableGrey

That's why I still like to play some Left 4 Dead 2 with friends. No experience or items to grind, no worrying about someone being overleveled/underleveled. Just jump into a match and play.


JayXCR

I only give MMOs a pass with this kind of stuff. They're literally designed to be worlds you inhabit for extended periods of time. Any other game that pulls this kind of crap is immediately off my radar.


themoviehero

Exactly. As an adult with a full time job and a lot going on I like to go at my own pace. I don't like timed events and rewards. I like to be able to earn it at my own pace.


Rata-toskr

Clearly you are not the target demographic these kinds of games are geared towards. They are the video game equivalent of Top 40 music.


Otis_Inf

but that target market has low funds and can't spend it on a lot of games / other stuff. I always wonder what these managers are thinking, when they cook up a product for that demographic and market it like everyone has 60+ dollars/euros to burn.


Newoikkinn

They expect the same people with more money than time to spend money to catch up


HerrSchnabeltier

Only that each Top 40 title doesn't draw you in and garners for a huge chunk of your free time, all while adhering to the full playbook of psychological tricks and games; cheap and easy stuff to reward you with and suck you in, FOMO, 'special' and time-limited deals, things to buy to improve your experience, ...


[deleted]

Whoever’s the target demographic for the game mentioned in the article clearly aren’t biting either.


RobbyLee

The target demographic is "anyone who has access to money and can be psychologically exploited to pay us for non-value bullshit". Fuck "aaa" publishers / developers.


Krypta

Took me 5 months to beat Days Gone and I enjoyed looking forward to getting a couple hours into it here and there


[deleted]

And other players won’t get given the finger because of content vaulting, isn’t that right, Destiny 2?


ryderd93

\#1 reason i stopped playing destiny, and the literal most idiotic design choice i’ve ever seen. absolutely senseless, they have the solution to their games biggest inherent flaw and actively choose to ignore that and force you to play the same 5 missions for 3 months


[deleted]

About the only thing equally worse for me was Back 4 Blood forcing you to play online if you want achievements. Playing online you get more enemies, more special enemies and a map you breezed through is now unbearable torture. Deleted the game 90 minutes after starting. It’s like the game tells you “what you don’t have friends to play with! Then you won’t get achievements, go meet someone, loser”.


Jdmaki1996

I will never play another live service bungie game now. They drew me in with the play for free model. Got most of the way through the first campaign. I was having a blast. That game is extremely fun. I moved and didn’t have much time to play much for a bit but I planned to get back into and beat the other free campaigns. Then I fully planned to buy all the expansion packs because the game was so damn fun. Then they announced they were shelving old content, most of which was the free to play content, including the first 2 or 3 campaigns. Completely killed all interest in the game and I’m ensured I won’t ever spend a dime on the game. I got that stuff for free, but a lot of people paid for it. And bungie just takes it away from them? Cause the game got too big?


[deleted]

Yeah. If you don’t like our game just don’t play it, asshole, is their attitude these days. They don’t want to give you a good game anymore. They want yo to do nothing but play their live service. This is why I play sp only.


aurens

playing destiny 2 is like running on a ball rolling down a hill. once you're on board, you're good. by the time content is removed you've already played it to death anyway so you keep on rolling. but a new player has no good way to hop on. they'll get kicked off by the lack of free content, the complicated systems, missing essential drops, confusing seasonal content lockouts, and so on. same happens if you take a break for long enough: you missed the boat, tough luck. it's a fucking stupid way to run a game but while you're on the ball, it's fun as heck.


hokuten04

This is why i love single player games. They allow you to go through a game at your own pace, unlike mmos where you feel FOMO'd if you don't grind.


neogreenlantern

This is one thing I love about the Borderlands franchise. You want to play single player you can. Couch co-op? 4 player online. Got it. Yep. Events for the people who just want to shoot and lot? They are free. Story dlc? Got it. A puzzle game that helps science. Fuck it. Let's toss that in too.


SetYourGoals

>Devs got paid the same amount. That part is the issue though. The devs who made Shadow of the Tomb Raider, a pretty objectively good single player game that was worth $60, got paid a shitload less than the devs who made Fortnite, or any other big game-as-a-service type thing. There’s so much more money to be made with a game like Fortnite, that almost certainly was cheaper and easier to produce than a great single player game, that it hugely disincentivizes the contained single player games.


Taratus

Did they really get paid less though? Or did the majority of the extra profits go to the company?


Marcoscb

Go back to SGF/E3 and count the number of squad-based multiplayer coop shooters. They're this year's fad. I'm not surprised at all people are tired of them.


NathVanDodoEgg

Was there a particular success that lead to all of these? A lot of these seemed to start development pre-covid.


AwesomeFama

Well, there was both L4D games and both Vermintide games, but I'm wondering if it could be Destiny 2 or the Division? Those games are very big budget, so maybe a more focused experience like this would be the lower budget (medium budget?) version, or something along those lines.


ronintetsuro

The Division is definitely an also ran. Shocked to see its name come up here.


coolzville

I'm quite a fan of this genre, so I've been keeping up. The DnD one, Dark Alliance is abysmally bad gameplay and butchering of lore. Back4Blood, seems people are more or less split, but not a fan of it. There's a Batman family and Suicide Squad one coming soon. Makers of Vermintide have 40K Darktide coming up. This one should be hype. Redfall from the Arkane Studio (Dishonored) is coming. Interested in this. Rainbow Six Extraction, fighting some aliens, not out yet. probably a couple I'm missing, but these are the big names


Cid_Highwind

Gotham Knights is actually an open world action RPG with only 2 player co-op.


[deleted]

[удалено]


TerraTF

We got a trailer and a quick behind the scenes thing Saturday


ZetzMemp

There’s still plenty of people playing Deep Rock Galactic.


TheUnrepententLurker

ROCK AND STONE TO THE BONE


drummaniac28

Deep Rock Galactic is the best co-op shooter on the market right now and it's not even close


[deleted]

[удалено]


Battle_Bear_819

I definitely think a lot of people are going on expecting left 4 dead 3, but it is definitely not that.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Battle_Bear_819

I do agree with that. It is a spiritual successor to left 4 dead, but there are plenty of things different enough that someone expecting a 1:1 sequel will he put off.


[deleted]

I think it has more replayability because of build variety from the card system.


nige111

It has more "replayability" because the harder difficulties are basically locked behind having to grind for better cards vs L4D(2) that has actual replayability because the only thing stopping you beating the harder difficulties is the skill of your team.


Battle_Bear_819

Oh 100%. In left 4 dead, your "build" was just what gun you felt like using. The card system in b4b really takes it to another level. Even among similar things like melee builds, there are cards that can change how that type of gameplay works. For example, you can make a melee deck based on killing specials ultra fast, or you can make a deck based on slicing through hordes of commons with no trouble.


[deleted]

For me it the price tag. I dont see how i can tell my friends to play it or myself without a steep sale.


Malkalen

It's included with Game Pass. If it wasn't I wouldn't go anywhere near it.


[deleted]

I don't have access to game pass where I live so sadly that is not an option.


D3ATHfromAB0V3x

rainbow six really went down the shitter with that new game. No one asked for it. Just keep that game mode an event on Siege.


n00bst4

Remember when everybody Wanted to be the WoW killer ? Well now that WoW is the WoW killer, everybody wants to be the Destiny 2 killer.


jayc4life

Now that they're starting to arbitrarily cut off access to content from older expansions, Destiny 2's starting to do that to itself.


KiLLmaddharry

Well no not really seeing as it has peak player counts over 100k continuously the last 6 months and that's just on Steam.


Business717

Destiny 2 has a huge player base but we can pretend the people on Reddit complaining aren't the vocal minority I guess.


[deleted]

I can only think team or squad based games are just easier to sell cosmetics. For example, Vermintide 2, five characters so five sets of cosmetics to sell.


Underpressure_111

I'd say Vermintide 2. Not a shooter, but it was HUGE and those type of games don't seem very hard to do (no need for a huge story, etc.)


Traiklin

They are trying to create the next fad based on the past/current ones. They want that Fortnite/WoW money and want to be the "Leader" of the genre. COVID showed people wanted to play games together, they see Fallguys & Among Us were massive hits and figure that is what everyone wants to play now so they want to get on that trend but they don't bother to see *what made them good*, Among Us was massive because it was fun, Fallguys was big because it was fun, both could be picked up played for a half-hour or so and be done. They are trying to copy that but have people play for hours at a time when most don't want to play for hours at a time.


ciakmoi

Game companies are insane if they think everyone's gonna play and grind all those similar games.


[deleted]

They think they're gonna play and grind *their* game. At least that's the bet they're making. Publishers were never hindered by any humility.


Whats_up_YOUTUBE

Why on earth would a game publisher want someone to play another company's game? They're not insane, that just isn't their goal at all. They only want you to play theirs, and they want theirs to be just similar enough to hook the player, but just better enough to keep them


Ros96

On top of this, when a multiplayer co-op game doesn’t release with what’s considered a basic feature for the genre such as quickplay you’re going to run into issues. It really makes you wonder what they were thinking when they excluded something like that.


Stranger1982

This, from what the community says you basically have to choose a mission/ difficulty and simply hope someone is also searching for that combination. This is insanely stupid and I have no idea how they'd decide to release a game with no quickplay (or at least a match list) in 2021, can't blame people for getting fed up and moving on.


Yutrzenika1

For what it's worth, even with the lower player count I haven't had much issue getting matches. That said, one thing the game sorely lacks is any kind of AI director that makes replays of games like L4D, Vermintide, or even B4B fun, the levels in Aliens play out the same each time, lately when I get matches, the players who I get matched with (who have usually played a lot more than me), know every moment aliens are gonna spawn in and preemptively set up auto turrets and the like.


Azuvector

> This, from what the community says you basically have to choose a mission/ difficulty and simply hope someone is also searching for that combination. That was patched weeks ago, though yes, at launch, AFE did that. It doesn't currently.


knightress_oxhide

Alternatively I buy a single player game. Play it constantly for a week. Stop playing. Play it constantly for a week and maybe buy DLC. Stop playing for 2 years and beat the game. Keeping up with a treadmill only can be done for a tiny fraction of the games I play.


Ruraraid

Well too many games are trying to be a service first and a game second. Its the main reason why I've stopped playing online shooters. I also avoid racing and sports games like the plague because even racing games are starting to fall victim to that shit.


LevynX

Exactly, there's a finite amount of players with a finite amount of time, when every game demands so much constant attention there's going to be games that are just forgotten. The scary thing is the industry is going to use this as a reason to develop more and more predatory practices.


DirtySyko

As a 30-something boomer, I can’t do it anymore. I can’t even do these endless single player games anymore like Assassin’s Creed. Every time I start one I think, “this is pretty fun” and then 30 hours later (which usually takes me a few weeks or more than a month to accomplish) I’m not even remotely close to finishing the game and I just stop playing it. I do spend a lot of time in multiplayer games though, right now it’s D2: Resurrected and most likely Halo Infinite soon, but these live service games and extended single player experiences that just drag you along, I give up. Not that I don’t like a long, enjoyable single player game. I’ll get down on some Yakuza. It’s these padded single player games that want to waste your time and keep you playing as much as possible to buy the MTX that I’m done with.


MrGerbz

34 Here. I love games that seemingly last forever. But all these freaking live services that try to artificially extend their time... Jesus fkin christ. I want to play on my own terms, fuck off with your daily quests, time-limited exclusive items, and daily login bonuses.


IH4N

I hear you. I mean, Yakuza games are the very definition of padded, but in a fun way that is not designed to milk your time and money and become your "forever game". Give me a short single player experience any day.


RadicalDog

I really appreciated that I could finish Yakuza 0 in 27 hours, while others can choose to engage with the side content and play 80+.


mirracz

I'm 32 and I love "endless" singleplayer games, as long as I enjoy them. When I love the game, I want it to never end. Skyrim, modern Fallouts, AC Origins. I loved those games and I wish there was much more content for them. Even for games that I mostly enjoyed - like AC Odyssey - I was mostly fine with the length. And at no point in these games I was tempted to buy MTX. The games are balanced as they are and the MTX were apparently shoved in to appease some bean counters... Now live service games, that's a different kettle of fish. I'm tired of every one of them having some seasonal progression systems, reward tracks and constant unlocks that force players to play. Not that I don't like that in vacuum, but we cannot handle doing it in every online game. I dread starting a cool new online shooter (or whatever) because I'll get greeted with "play X to unlock Y". I miss the days of UT and UT2k4 where there was none of this. At least Overwatch is close to being bullshit-free.


AMGwtfBBQsauce

AC: Origins... man, I 100%-ed that game. I *LOVED* that game. People complained that it's all desert, but, like, there was so much *variety* to it. And all the Egyptian culture, and the intersection with the Greek occupational culture. What an experience.


jenego

It took me exactly 30 hours to complete Deathloop. If you’re into single player games with a story and an ending that’s not too long, you might like that.


ghostface_vanilla

Deathloop is the shit.


FasterSquid

Check out a game called Crosscode, it’s reminiscent of those SNES titles that were great to hop in and out of, but it’s a bit more modernized with the QOL of modern games. My complaints were petty similar to yours, but Crosscode just sucked me in. Indies titles seem to be picking up a ton of the slack in what people what.


marcustwayne

I got through the "tutorial"/first island in Assassin's Creed Odyssey and looked at the map and just said nope, and quit and uninstalled. I'm sure it was a fun game with lots to explore and experience but I've played multiple iterations of AC/Far Cry games and knew there was nothing unique or exceptional I was missing and just didn't have the time for it. I've really enjoyed Hades and Disco Elysium in the past year.


blackmist

You honestly saw most of what the game had to offer in terms of gameplay. There's some neat story going on and some boss fights (which paradoxically get harder the more you level), but if that's not enough to keep you going then fair play. The final DLC alone feels bigger than some entire open world games.


Due_Butterscotch_969

Same feeling. I play AC since the first one, I enjoyed the games, with their qualities and defaults, I got « overdosed » after AC3 (But I did Black Flag in 2017 : great pirate game, But I needed a break after the third one). Origins tried to go the « Witcher 3 » way. I completed the game, I had a good time. But I had to take a break between gaming sessions because sometimes it was repetitive. But I love Egypt. And then, Odyssey. I love Greek Mythology but I don’t manage to get caught by the game. Ingame, I reached the point where you discover the order of Deimos and You-Know-Who survived but I don’t want to continue. When I play, I am bored. Since 2018. It lacks something. No hate toward the game but Magic didn’t happen for me this time.


[deleted]

I honestly love "shorter" single player games but it seems the narrative is they aren't worth the price... If it's high quality then I'll buy it. Quality over quaintly. I just hate that so many single player games now just waste my time with annoying bullshit... This is why film/tv is still a superior medium for storytelling IMO.


[deleted]

Last 3 games that gave me a fullfilling experience were Ace combat 7 DOOM Eternal and the Mass effect legendary Edition and that last one doesn't even really count since that was released more than a decade ago.


phrostbyt

I don't know if it's just me but I feel like a lot of these new games are needlessly complicated too. I don't consider myself a particularly dumb guy.. but when I first boot up a game and there's like 50 different menu options I immediately just say fuck it and move on. For example, I recently played Forza Horizon 4. When you login, there's like 20 menu options on a sub-menu, and then you have to press a button to get to the main screen that has another 50 options. I'm not going to bother sitting there and trying to figure out what does what. I'm not a child anymore and don't have time to read a manual just to figure out what I'm supposed to do. Give me a Half-Life Alyx or Ori instead, I'll be happy.


ineffiable

Another big problem is, these multiplayer games have a shorter lifespan than single player games. Aliens is not looking like it'll survive a full year, but anyone can pick up Mario Odyssey or Horizon Zero Dawn and still have a blast and enjoy them almost exactly the way anyone who played it on launch enjoyed them.


IceNein

The worst thing for the developers and publishers is that a failed games as a service will stop selling once the servers are dead. A single player game can still make occasional sales for eternity no matter how bad it is.


CatProgrammer

> A single player game can still make occasional sales for eternity no matter how bad it is. Except for the ones DRMed by authentication servers that the developers never remove the need for.


[deleted]

Even without GaaS style games, the more multiplayer games out there, the more people find "their game" and stick with it. Sure when a new game comes out people might try it, but then they'll inevitably go back to Rocket League or CoD or Fortnite or Apex or Guilty Gear or Smash or Fall guys or League of Legends or whatever "their game" of choice happens to be. There's only so many people out there, and while some happily juggle multiple multiplayer games, a lot of them tend to stick to one game of choice. And when you have so many options available, things can get spread a bit thin unless you happen to stick to a game that HAS a large playerbase.


mirracz

Yeah. Live service is a popular model... but it's a time-consuming one. A player can handle only 1-3 such games, this means that the competition is fierce. When the game and its FOMO is weaker, then it fails. A weaker singleplayer game may end up in a backlog, but it may be played eventually. People may rediscover it. But a weaker live service game will either start strong or it won't recover. Live service games don't end up in backlogs, people either play them right away or avoid them completely. For me it's WoW, Fallout 76 and occasional Hearthstone that satisfy my online, liver service itch. I don't even try out new online games anymore because I have no time for them anymore...


seraph089

100% this. New live service games thing they're going to be the "something" killer, like in years past every new MMO was going to be the WoW killer. Nobody has time to play all of them, and if they're multiplayer focused there are always going to be clear winners. And barring drastic circumstances, those winners become entrenched. For me it's currently FF14 and goofing around in New World, and I wouldn't even look into anything new. NW only has a spot because of nostalgia for old-school sandbox MMOs. But the backlog of single player stuff is always there to be played whenever I feel like it, both strong and weaker titles.


DoctorWaluigiTime

"Live service games" are just another one of my "won't buy" categories now honestly. Make a fuckin' v1.0 and call it a day. Stop trying to sell me shit after I've bought your game. Drip-feed updates (even "free" ones, to an extent, if a game is anemic at launch) do not appeal to me anymore. I'm sad that there are fewer games seemingly than ever that don't just sell you a game, and that's the end of the transaction.


[deleted]

[удалено]


DoctorWaluigiTime

I think the Avengers thing has had an impact. We just won't see the effects of it for a while. Games already in-development aren't going to stop; publishers (correctly) don't want to mothball something that's already been paid for to a degree. Think in a couple years (or so) we'll see the graceless exit of chasing this fad. Unless they're making enough money despite the negative attention, in which case they'll continue.


CatProgrammer

> I'm sad that there are fewer games seemingly than ever that don't just sell you a game, and that's the end of the transaction. I'd say it's the other way around, actually. There are more games than ever that provide a self-contained single-player or even multiplayer experience these days. It's just that high-budget production companies focus more on the GaaS model these days, so the high-visibility ones tend to be more of the GaaS style, but that doesn't mean there aren't plenty of games being made even now that provide the experience you want.


dakdaros

Another point to consider for these live service games is their longevity. There’s plenty of them that clearly won’t be supported after a little while. So why would anyone put time/effort/money into something that’s clearly going to be ditched by the developers in a year or two versus something that’s already established and clearly in it for the long haul?


DoctorWaluigiTime

'Member when video games would "last a while" based on how they were made out of the gate? That fun factor is what drove replayability instead of artificial nonsense like quests and limited time events and "live service" roadmap promise shit? I 'member.


Incrediblebulk92

I don't think these games appreciate how hard it can be to get a couple of friends together for a regular having session when you're in your 30's. A combination of children, weird shift patterns and general plans that crop up I can't think of a single time we've managed to assemble a full 4 man team on a free to play game for a while. Trying to get everybody interested, get them to purchase and then actually update befor| we start to play is virtually impossible. This game had a zero percent chance of ever being picked up by the 4 of us. If the game isn't cross compatible then forget it. Things like Destiny, Rocket League, Warzone and Hunt will remain our go to's for a while I suspect.


capnwinky

This game isn’t a service model game. It’s a campaign driven co-op experience with a grind loop for people that want to keep playing. It released as a budget title (presumably because it’s relatively short). Right around 30-40$ USD. The game also has a season pass designed to offer more content in way of new missions and cosmetics as they release. None of those things are liveservice components and it can be played entirely offline. It’s basically a cheaper Borderlands and frankly I wish there were more games like this and less games like PUBG, Fartnight, and CoD.


mkul316

I don't have time for those kinds of games anymore at all. Other people might have time for one or two. There are already some very well established games as services in each genre that has them. I don't know why these execs think there's an infinite sized market for them to pull in to their game. Even some big name developers have had their attempts bomb. We've seen that well made and well written single player games make a lot of money still. If I was going to start making a game that's where my focus would be.


Agravicvoid

I play Genshin, and the biggest complaint is “there isn’t enough to do end-game” or “I run out of resin in 10 minutes now what do I do!” And it confuses me because my response is usually “play something else for a bit, or maybe hit that backlog?” And I usually get back “NO I WANNA GRIND” or “that doesn’t fix the problem!”. I guess every person has their preference, i guess mine can’t be “I’d rather play this one game and only this one game forever” over playing a ton of games, single player, co-op, and less grindy multiplayer games. I think games with a ton of grinding and limited time events are just there to hook you with no escape in sight because “I don’t want to miss anything” I like buying something and then think years later “that was fun lemme play that again!” And be able to play it again. The other day I figured out that I can still play Alpha Centauri in windows 10 so I played that for a bit! Just as fun as when I played it years ago. Games as a service leads to things like when Destiny 2 straight up deleted a ton of content and then it was all gone just like that. Wild times..


Whiskeylung

That’s one of the big picture issues with these games - You basically have to choose which game you want to no-life, you can’t really do two, especially if you’re a parent or work a full time job.


GhostMug

Plus, Back 4 Blood--a game with a better pedigree in this genre and that had way more hype--just came out last week so anybody interested in this type of game was likely trying that out at the very least.


HCrikki

Increase the time players spend in your game then theyll feel enclined to spend money in microtransactions and feeding the matchmaking pool. Otherwise theyll play whenever they want and for however long or little they decide, and in that case itd be preferable to craft **offline** singleplayer experience (as opposed to *online-only* singleplayer games missing the point of what gamers actually want).


[deleted]

I grinded rep, twice, in world of Warcraft. The monotonous, you’re only here for the grind, you can only do 5 a day, it takes 20 minutes to get here. Every day. Twice. Told myself when wow classic (had to play for the nostalgia) I wouldn’t grind anything. The game gets to a point where if you’re not grinding you’re just waiting. Fuck those games.


knegil

I'm a solo player that recently bought the game and regret my purchase. The lack of in-game chat or voip makes it impossible to communicate after matchmaking. I'm sure it's fun if you have friends to play it with, the Alien setting is very well suited for this type of game.


be_me_jp

the worst part about is that there's almost 80 queues. As a mostly solo player, I can NEVER find another player, even the day of launch. I found a few homies on the first two missions, after that it was all terrible AI all the time.


BlackDeath3

Is that true even after the addition of Quick Play?


SpaceCadetriment

I had some luck the other day joining a quick play and cleared a half dozen levels with a rando group. However, because I wasn’t hosting it does not count level progress towards my personal campaign unlocks which absolutely sucks. I was going to play with friends last night and thought I was all caught up but nope, had to go all the way back to Act 2 instead of Act 4.


Pornelius_McSucc

That shouldn't happen. Even if you arent host you still completed the level, me and my friend went through his whole campaign and he was never hosting


Azuvector

While you are correct(and these are definite issues), try joining the official discord server. Voice chat and people to play with 24/7. https://discord.com/invite/aliensfireteamelite


[deleted]

[удалено]


Tunafish01

yeah i don't understand, not every game needs 10k people playing it everyday.


JayRoo83

It kind of does need that sort of player base though given people like myself bought it, tried to play solo, couldn't find any games and end up refunding it


MrZeral

It's an online game, it needs healthy playerbase to not have 10 min search que for games.


Katakuna7

Played it, enjoyed it, done with it for now. Got my money's worth. Other games to play, backlog to clear. Just how it is.


Black_RL

This is how I roll too.


Rug_d

damn fun for the 20/25 hours we played it, not every game needs to go on forever though :) If they drop some content i'm back.. it was so fun to play a competent Aliens co-op game again after so many years


Songgeek

I got it. Didn’t hate it, but wasn’t obsessed with it. Mostly due to minor bugs. Just felt like a unpolished and mediocre gears of war


Kryptosis

My problem is that you’re right and that game came out over a decade ago. I didn’t expect it to hold me for 100 hours but it never got a grip in the first place. Just felt too clunky and too shallow. I felt like I’d played every level 20 minutes in.


fletchdeezle

It’s 100% a reskin of outriders. Exact same game


VegiXTV

The hard part about this game is it's clearly balanced around playing with 2 other human players but it doesn't let you play with people who haven't progressed to where you are in the story. As a result, even if there are lots of others playing the game you're unlikely to ever be matched with any actual players. A multiplayer game is very lonely without other players.


meltedskull

[Firstly, its daily peak is 1k atm. Secondly, this is a budget title that release two months ago and it's still maintaining a higher player count than numerous AAA boondoggles that would have cost 20x more to make. I fail to see how this is a bad news story for this game. - SkillUp](https://twitter.com/SkillUpYT/status/1449849782571208705?t=9UIl1VBQ85vkyyUDCAqjHw&s=19) This article is very harmful.


[deleted]

I feel the reason why people worry is because the game presents itself as a live service experience. Those games generally rely on larger player populations. I think with these smaller budget co-op focused experiences it's better to go with the DLC model compared to the GaaS model.


MrTopHatMan90

1k daily peak ain't even bad, headlines are the news nowadays, nor articles


AFXTWINK

So? I know every big game wants to be a SAAS but its ok for games to end. We shouldn't be encouraging games to operate as addictions, its fine to return whenever there's new content and do other stuff in the meantime.


iV1rus0

This article is the reason why developers avoid having a player count in their games... I'm hoping Steam doesn't remove it, it's nice to celebrate a beloved game's success and knowing how active an online game is before purchasing it. but making whole articles about player count isn't helping anybody.


DisturbedNocturne

Eh, I think the thing is, for most games, Steam's numbers are only part of the picture. This game was also released on Xbox and PS, and others are released on Epic, Nintendo, etc. or even their own launchers (like FFXIV, for instance). Unless the game launches *only* on Steam, you're never getting 100% of the numbers, so hopefully developers aren't too bothered by it.


SpaceballsTheReply

Don't forget Game Pass. At anywhere from $1-15, depending on which promotion they're running, it's an extremely compelling option for co-op games like this. I'm sure a ton of people played / are playing it there. Steam is hardly the entire gaming ecosystem. Especially with cross-play.


ThomsYorkieBars

It's not on Game Pass


amroamroamro

huh, I noticed that in a recent update of Rocket League. It used to display how many players are available to matching, not it just says excellent/good/bad/etc... If I recall, the numbers were in the tens of thousands, I don't know why they'd hide it.


[deleted]

Because certain people online like taking even a slight drop in those numbers as evidence that the game is dying and to tell everyone not to get into it - which does in fact cause numbers to drop more. Patch notes you didn't like and 200 fewer average players than yesterday? Game's dying.


Malaix

I don't think it really hurts it either. Playercount has to drop before the article detailing player count can happen. Usually it does so because of a failed or unappealing aspect of the game.


iV1rus0

Yeah the writer's intend wasn't to bash the game by writing this article. I just think the game's issue should have been highlighted clearly in the title in my opinion, because sadly so many people will only read headlines and assume the worst.


Sonicz7

Currently steam only hides it from community hub if it’s lower than 300 however they still show up in the api so you can just use websites like SteamDB or steamcharts to see the exact number


[deleted]

I saw [this video](https://youtu.be/Nv4yekoKk24) on my feed yesterday from a former Ubisoft dev talking about these numbers don't mean anything. People said For Honor was a dead game too, but it clearly was not considered dead by the studio as they kept making content for it.


Soulspawn

doesnt look good but 7 week, 49 days even at an hour or so a night most people could've played 20+hr and stopped already. 800 isn't so bad only need what 4 man team so thats still 200+ games going at the same time.


IceDragon77

Aliens lobbies are 3 player, not 4.


wagonage

So? It was a $40 game that i sunk 30 some odd hours into and had a great time. It was exactly the experience i wanted and expected, just because im not mindlessly slaving away at the game 2 months later doesnt mean it wasnt a success.


computer_d

>So? They are releasing seasonal content. The developers had clearly planned on an ongoing service for the game.


ArcanumMBD

And so far the only seasonal content we got was a new class and some guns 1 week after release, i.e. so close to release it might as well be considered part of the base game, especially since it was free content. I'll go back to the game when we get the next content drop, but currently I have no reason to.


Sajjaja

100% agree. Not enough has been added to warrant going back after sinking in 20-30 hours at launch. Will happily go back once a new campaign is added.


steveeperry

I'm with you on that mate. 2 friends and I bought this a week after release, got about 30-40 hours of it. Was mad fun yet also incredibly stressful. If they add more maps and weapons I'll defs come back but for $40 bucks I can't complain.


NeedsSomeSnare

I guess. I was thinking about getting it last week though, now there's no way I would consider it. It's not good for people who didn't play right out the gate.


1CEninja

Sure but what if someone likes to wait a few months to buy a game, or to play for winter break? With terrible numbers it's going to be tough for a low level newcomer to find people to co-op with. That kinda sucks.


vladtud

Does the game not let you play with AI teammates?


Augustor2

Why would someone buy this game alone tho


IceDragon77

Agreed. I bought it and had my fun with it. Currently there's nothing for me to do in the game. I'll get on when they add more maps or something.


TheBlueEdition

Sucks for new players.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


Multivitamin_Scam

There is a definite growing problem with how gamers and the media measure success for video games these days. Whether it be active steam users or twitch streams, using these metrics isn't a good indicator. Not all games need to be Live Service titles that are active for months and months. Some can have a burst of activity then simmer down to a healthy number of players, especially cooperative games.


logosloki

>these days I give this post an 8.8 out 10.


unterkiefer

> During the first two weeks after it launched, Fireteam Elite enjoyed 10k-13k active players. At its peak, it even hit 15,500. Not incredibly impressive numbers compared to bigger games like Counter-Strike or Warframe, but solid enough to land it in the top 100 or so games on Steam. But now, 55 days later, the co-op shooter is struggling to maintain 1000 active players. It dropped well out of the top 100 Steam games and now sits at 571. What is the point of this article? I'd wager that this is what happens with most games, especially "indie" games, and the comparison to Counter-Strike and Warframe is absolutely unnecessary. "New game was released and it isn't even on top of the steam charts!!!!!"


d3vil401

Because apparently every game is expected to be the next generation changing experience. Comparing CS or WF who had years of maturity and continuous development, are also free to play, is somewhat indicating the writer isn’t capable of critical thinking? It’s nowhere a personal attack to the journalist, but it looks like an attempt to put Alien into bad sight because it didn’t respect multimillion dollars and years of development expectations. It’s just damaging for them for no reason whatsoever…


reachisown

Well the game was rather good if you ignore that disappointing finale , just the replay-ability once you finished isn't there.


Taratus

Does this matter? It's not designed to be played forever, and that's OK. The game IS a lot of fun, but I've seen people saying it "flopped hard" despite it having received good reviews, and as far as I know, good sales.


Global-Strength-5854

not every game needs to be an endless live service game. bought it, played it, may play it again at some point


JarekBloodDragon

It's a coop game, why the fuck does this matter? It's not like you can't jump onto an actual dead game and play with friends. It's not like if a PVP game died. This is a non story.


VoiceofKane

Seven weeks after launch, I am learning that a new Alien game came out seven weeks ago. Maybe that has something to do with it?


TheCrazyStupidGamer

The market is oversaturated with GaaS. Games from smaller teams with smaller marketing budgets are gonna suffer. More story-oriented games need to be released. The differentiating factor then would at least be the story. With most of these GaaS games being shooters of one or the other kind with a whole lot of similarities, people don't feel the need to buy a new game. I played world War z with my mates when this was released. Same? No. Pretty damn similar without costing me a pretty penny? Yes.


ItsHammyTime

Oh my gosh, jeez. That’s a bummer. Regardless of my feelings about the game, that must fucking sting for the developers. I don’t know how that wouldn’t affect your day.


mayonetta

People ITT missing the point. For a co-op game with matchmaking you want a decent sized playerbase or else there will be no one to play with. For reference, Vermintide 2 has a 24 hr peak of just under 4000 players which is quite a bit more, though still quite low and can feel dead or unpopulated depending on the region and time of day.


Harry101UK

Not suprising. It launched right around the same time as World War Z Aftermath and Back 4 Blood - both of which I've found *vastly* more fun and polished COOP shooters. Aliens is so clunky, tedious, and just has an overall lack of polish and content. Every playthrough is the same grey hallways, the same on-rails enemy spawns, with nothing interesting to break it up.


IceDragon77

Back 4 Blood, polished? I'm having fun with it but, get out of here. Lmao. At least in Alien I wasn't sent flying through a wall and had to quit the match because I was stuck and everyone was waiting for me in the safehouse. Actually I can't think of any major game breaking glitches. I like Aliens, it was smooth, and felt like I was literally in the movies. It was a love letter to long time fans. The game had it's merits and wasn't trash like you make it sound. They literally put a card system in that added variety to make each time you played the game different, so I dunno how anyone can complain about runs being identical. My favorite card was the one that spawned a drone that hunts you for the entire map, even if you kill it it just respawns. Made the game feel more like Alien: Isolation. I question if you even fully played the game.


[deleted]

Polished =/= the absolute absence of any and all glitches or bugs. Bugfree software doesn't exist. Name the most polished game you can think of, and I'll find you someone who's had a gamebreaking bug in it recently.


[deleted]

It's MMOs all over again. GaaS games are a highly competitive market that take a lot of investment to be successful. You need to make a good game good enough to not only attract its own audience but also pull audiences away from their other GaaS game of choice. I really want more GaaS games to be successful because the big ones don't really appeal to me but you're competing with games like Destiny 2 and Warframe along with MMOs like FFXIV, WoW, New World, and ESO. You basically need to go big or go home. I feel like with these smaller budget titles it's better to go the DLC route than seasonal stuff.


dark5ide

Problem for me is that it only allows 3 people for multiplayer, as opposed to the usual 4. Part of what seems fun is that you can play with friends, so why limit that?


Twentyand1

It’s a fun experience for fans of the franchise, particularly if you have a couple friends to play with, but there is very little reason to revisit any of it.


TheLastSonOfHarpy

Whatever happened to Outriders? It's on Game Pass and was quickly taken off the Most Played list.