People can only spend so much time on a Live Service style game. They aim to be "The game you log into daily", but usually only kids have the kind of free time to grind these out week after week, let alone keep up with multiple.<p>Then, each have their own $10ish Battlepass, and you need to grind to get to the end of it. Aside from a new map or character, these are the bulk of 'new stuff' that gets added.<p>Gaming as a Service doesn't scale well on most people who can afford to whale out, once they've already found their slot machine.
It's insane that they are giving up so soon. They released it with basically no advertising. Even if you ignore the real issues with the game, people not liking the character design, the live service aspect, etc. It's pretty obvious something like this is going to fail if they don't put any effort into hyping people to play it.<p>I'm way more into gaming than a lot of people and the first I heard of it was headlines about the launch being so unsuccessful.
Well it launched up against Deadlock, another shooter by a company people actually know, and which dominated streams for a bit. If nobody plays your game live on launch, then you don’t make sales.<p>More info from LMG:
<a href="https://youtu.be/7GzzatlUNtE" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/7GzzatlUNtE</a>
Paladins, a well-made free-to-play Overwatch clone, was released in 2018, 6 years ago. Overwatch 2 has failed to attract serious audience last year despite also being a free game. Why would people spend money on yet another Overwatch, if it's not outstanding?
Heard about this from various social media angles.<p>Surprised the math makes sense. Obviously this is a financial rounding error. Yet they're ok with me as random receiving around 3x negative messaging this week?<p>Maybe the secret is association? Till this post concord and sony was not linked in my mind
Is this accounting games at play?<p>Does "releasing it", allow them to write-off the 8-year investment as a loss (but if unreleased, they can't recognize the gain/loss)?<p>Just wondering if that's what's going on.
There are tons of indie shooters that sold way better than this game, saying this didn’t sell well because of a saturated market is just being dishonest. Read the actual reviews for the game and the reason it did poorly is glaringly obvious. The answer is not politically correct but it is true nonetheless.
This game has been mired in some kind of controversy around over focus on social justice, aggressive responses from developers in response to critical reviews, and some other ‘woke’ criticisms. I find it strange that this is not mentioned in articles about this game being shut down. The social justice politics is very much a part of why this game did not attract gamers. I say that as someone who isn’t especially keyed into these political battles normally.
As if online only games as a service slop wasn't disgusting enough, they added hideous DEI character for ESG scores.<p>They really did reach the modern audience