-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
David Jaffe gets multiplayer wrong...
- Thread starter Men_in_Boxes
- Start date
jigglet
Banned
Is that what he said? I've been playing Siege for 7 years and can still play it 12 hours a day without getting bored. At the peak of COD I was able to play up to 18 hours a day and still loving every second of it. Not sure how many single player games that can hook someone like that.
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
I think you're living in a different era. Those games (Roller Champions, Knockout City, HyperScape, Destruction All Stars) would all be good games if it were say...2001. Today, they're overly simple, overly repetitive, and none of them had a chance from day 1. They're not good.
48 of the last 50 multiplayer successes released over the last 5 years basically fall into one of three genre types:
Battle Royale, Survival, and Co-op.
*HyperScape was a BR that did it's damndest to play like an arena shooter, which is a dead genre. Brilliant move Ubisoft.
Blizzard is 4 years into making a *shocking* SURVIVAL GAME. Who wants to take bets that it'll be the next big (successful) Blizzard IP?
Sony changed the entire trajectory of their company after Fortnite and PUBG went supernova in 2018. Do we really think Sonys 11+ Live Service games, that likely got greenlit in 2019 - 2021, are going to follow the old era multiplayer formula that's been bombing left and right? IE: Roller Champions, Knockout City, Halo Infinite etc...
I don't think so. I think Jim Ryan is probably wipe boarding what modern multiplayer successes look like and greenlighting based off his findings. There are people that get this stuff.
Btw, love ya Jaffe. Stay interesting and update your podcast feed more often!
Last edited:
Guilty_AI
Member
I think its less an issue on the genre and more a matter of having a stream of content. Halo Infinite started out pretty well but lacked content, and updates were slow.
There's also the matter of finding a niche. Many companies act as if their game needs to be the next fortnite in order to be successful. You can have a successful live-service game without having it to be the next thing.
Look at Euro Truck Sim 2, a game about driving trucks of all things. It has been going strong for years, a player base of 40k-50k that grew over time. Its no fortnite but their business model was clearly successful for them. What do they do? They update their game and release new expansions frequently.
Last edited:
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
I don't think this is true at all. Go look on Steam how Halo Infinite cratered in players during its first 6 weeks. It started losing players at a drastic clip on day 4.
Compare that with how Fortnite and PUBG grew and grew and grew with an anemic content schedule during their first 6 weeks. No Battle Passes. No shops. No rewards to play. They grew at a rapid clip because the core of BR is simply better.
Content obviously helps but multiplayer doesn't grow if the seed isn't healthy to start.
I agree with this. I hear to often "Everyone tries to be the next Fortnite but they always fail".
Sea of Thieves hasn't made 1/100th of the profit of Fortnite and it's Rares most successful game.
davidjaffe
The Fucking MAN.
Well I know one of those games in production right now and all I can say- unless the design is something TOTALLY out of the norm for that franchise: WTF?!?
...cause it's the same old formulas FROM BEFORE 2001.
As for your assessment of the games I mention as being overly simple, overly repetitive, I'll let FALL GUYS know you stopped by
.
OOGABOOGA
Banned
then who should people listen to an industry legend or a bunch of nobodies on the internet!! Is this a self-diss!! I'm not sure LOL.
Last edited:
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
The Twisted Metal Reboot (if that is what you're referring to) can only be one of two things...
1. A complete rework of the formula.
2. Sony puts a smaller team on it. Scopes it unambitiously, and hope's it commercially synergizes with the TV show well.
PlayStations 11+ Live Service games aren't all going to be home runs. I can see Sony going for a single or a double with a few of them. The timeframe of the show and late shift to FireSprite, who's making like 4 other games, suggests it's #2.
As for your assessment of the games I mention as being overly simple, overly repetitive, I'll let FALL GUYS know you stopped by
Jim Ryan: "So you want a job helping us greenlight projects based on your... theories? How do you explain FALL GUYS then?!"
Me: "Well, it IS a 60 player BR... It's overly simple and repetitive nature is offset by how low the skill floor is which gives it a market advantage. Two non gaming parents can play with their 6 year old and 8 year old because it relies on just the joystick and a jump button. Plus, it doesn't hurt that it went F2P at the beginning of summer."
Jim Ryan: "I bequeath you my position as SIE president."
Kenneth Haight
Gold Member
So funny all these dwellers taking shots at
davidjaffe
when their total full games produced, or games worked on amount to a big fat zero.
davidjaffe
when their total full games produced, or games worked on amount to a big fat zero.
Tiago Rodrigues
Member
Jaffe? That you?
PhaseJump
Banned
So funny all these dwellers taking shots at
For all we know, Miyamoto himself is sitting at a computer, chain smoking. Flicking cigarette ashes into an open PS1 with a copy of Twisted Metal 2 inside, while he prepares a Jaffe-hating shit post on GAF.
STARSBarry
Gold Member
In the OP
Men_in_Boxes
speaks about the social part of games, and I agree. It also might be the reason that Halo Infinite crashed and burned in terms of player numbers. It removed a lot of the social aspects of the game.
There is no prematch lobby where people see title cards and profiles while talking smack, when the round ends you don't keep the same players and it fills the drop outs with people from the queue your all instantly thrown back into the queue because the MM 50% W/L algorithm demands it. There is no time to breath or talk to anyone your playing with.
That's some each of the prior halo's had but is noticeably missing in infinite. These days I tend to play games where I can pick a dedicated server with people I know such as chivalry 2.
Men_in_Boxes
speaks about the social part of games, and I agree. It also might be the reason that Halo Infinite crashed and burned in terms of player numbers. It removed a lot of the social aspects of the game.There is no prematch lobby where people see title cards and profiles while talking smack, when the round ends you don't keep the same players and it fills the drop outs with people from the queue your all instantly thrown back into the queue because the MM 50% W/L algorithm demands it. There is no time to breath or talk to anyone your playing with.
That's some each of the prior halo's had but is noticeably missing in infinite. These days I tend to play games where I can pick a dedicated server with people I know such as chivalry 2.
Last edited:
Guilty_AI
Member
It was lacking features day 1, it had even less content than previous Halo games on release, both in maps and modes. It also lacked a lot of social features previous Halo games had. Its also worth noting at the time of PUBG release BR was a "new thing", and its a naturally meatier genre than arena shooters, so its understandable it managed to hold out for longer without support (but still needed support in the end).
Look at CSGO or Valorant, although not classic arena shooters (though neither is Halo by that metric), they're still highly successful. They're doing something right.
And this ties with my previous point. You can nurture a game into success, any type of game, as long as you don't consider "success" is "be the next thing". That includes Halo formula.
Talk about nurturing, thats another core issue. Many publisher/devs want their games to be one-hit wonders, few actually release a game with proper plans to cultivate it.
Last edited:
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Yup.
When it comes to all the large and small and one-man studios making games I truly wonder what their definition of success is.... sales goal? profit goal? user goal? no goal, just launch it and whatever happens happens?
I hope they are realistic targets.
I can understand Activision or EA gunning their games to be top sellers due to the budgets they put in and the expectations they have as a giant company with deep pockets. I dont think they release a game hoping it achieves Rank 20 and thats good enough to give each other high fives. But for smaller games, success can be 1000 gamers playing it, where COD's expectations can be 20M people buying it.
I hope teams that dont have the resources as AAA studios expect their generic FPS becomes the next COD.
Last edited:
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
I've thought about those two games a lot as they don't exactly fit into the "new era" multiplayer I describe. Hell, RS Siege is still pretty popular. I can only come up with two theories why...
1. One life per match games are inherently better than respawn games. When death is little more than a minor annoyance it drastically loses intensity and meaning.
2. Valerant and CSGO are superior social experiences. Everything is organized in these games so that communication makes sense. Arena shooters are blenders where saying "I'm over here. Come help me take this position" is met with "Bro, I have no idea where you are. I'm respawning somewhere else."
Btw, Jade Raymond, Alanah Pearce, and David Jaffe threads all bring out the bartender in Rocky type people. Stahp. Be Rocky.
Last edited:
I know a lot of people are going to attack me for this but I think part of the reason Halo Infinite seemed to start out strong then drop hard was all because of the PR machine. At launch most of it was marketing but when the marketing died so did the game because most people weren't actually interested in playing it for long.
Last edited:
Guilty_AI
Member
CSGO has a deathmatch mode which has plenty of players. However, you might be onto something as many people use deathmatch as a way to train their skills, so it could be a situation where the two modes complement each other.
Deathmatch is fun and good for the casual or unskilled player, but by itself it could grow tedious quickly. Enters competitive offering the "next step" on the skill ceiling for the people getting bored who want more.
Besides, there are other ways to tweak a game into being more challenging without resorting to permadeath on a match.
Its always possible to tweak the formula to make them more social. The issue you're talking about can be solved rather simply with some proper map design for example, or features that let you find teammates.
One tweak of the formula that worked quite well for example were with hero shooters. They're basically arena shooters with classes, inspiring teamwork.
Last edited:
chromatic9
Member
We've seen the multiplayer land shift around so much I don't think you can include a set of ingredients to make the game hit or land, you can give yourself a better chance but still lose a ton. Games gain traction through a bit of luck, being fresh, it's a particular creative artform that has unquantifiable elements, like music making or a painting, the game will have a certain look or vibe that's exciting or interesting at the time or a slightly different mechanic, some of it will be just down to trends and following others which turns into a snowball effect.
I guess that's the danger of paying billions. A new studio can come along and take all your players.
I guess that's the danger of paying billions. A new studio can come along and take all your players.
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
Sorry for the bump, I know this topic isn't everyone's cup of tea. I'm just fascinated by how gamers can continue to be bewildered by the success or failure of Live Service games.
Here, David Jaffe still isn't putting the pieces together on why games like Multiverses aren't retaining players. (Hint: Look at the games that do)
"It got great reviews" - Critics almost never recognize great, long lasting multiplayer games.
"...great brand IP" - IP doesn't matter to multiplayer gamers. See PUBG + Fortnite vs all the Marvel and Star Wars multiplayer games no one plays today.
"It got a lot of hype, lot of marketing" - Two things great for launch...and meaningless soon after. Multiplayer success has to do with hour 20, hour 50, hour 500...not day one numbers.
"You can do everything right (and still fail)..." In reality, it did very little right. It missed vital ingredients that the majority of Live Service games have. It's time to start hypothesizing what those vital ingredients are.
Here, David Jaffe still isn't putting the pieces together on why games like Multiverses aren't retaining players. (Hint: Look at the games that do)
"It got great reviews" - Critics almost never recognize great, long lasting multiplayer games.
"...great brand IP" - IP doesn't matter to multiplayer gamers. See PUBG + Fortnite vs all the Marvel and Star Wars multiplayer games no one plays today.
"It got a lot of hype, lot of marketing" - Two things great for launch...and meaningless soon after. Multiplayer success has to do with hour 20, hour 50, hour 500...not day one numbers.
"You can do everything right (and still fail)..." In reality, it did very little right. It missed vital ingredients that the majority of Live Service games have. It's time to start hypothesizing what those vital ingredients are.
Last edited:
64bitmodels
Reverse groomer.
Reading this thread and your takes is actually an extremely eye opening look into what makes multi-player games work and what thrusts other games into obscurity- the reality is that the biggest boon of multiplayer are the social interactions you can have in online games, the potential for new friendships to be established and memories to be made.
Most arena shooter type games are ultimately shooting galleries with other players and it's hard to have much teamwork even in team deathmatch because of how maps and map design do not encourage teamwork. (I still fucking love them though)
That being said how the fuck do battle Royales count as an example of good new age multiplayer when they exemplify these problems? Everyone's spread out on a giant map meaning finding other enemies is a chore and it's a every man for yourself game so even people you team up with must die.
I think PVE games like left 4 dead 2 are a better example of this since that game encourages everyone to stay together- you can't take on a horse of zombies by yourself, and everyone needs to be in a safe room to complete a level, so leaving no one behind is highly recommended. This encourages social interactions since when everyone's together everyone is naturally gonna want to work with each other and help each other out.
Most arena shooter type games are ultimately shooting galleries with other players and it's hard to have much teamwork even in team deathmatch because of how maps and map design do not encourage teamwork. (I still fucking love them though)
That being said how the fuck do battle Royales count as an example of good new age multiplayer when they exemplify these problems? Everyone's spread out on a giant map meaning finding other enemies is a chore and it's a every man for yourself game so even people you team up with must die.
I think PVE games like left 4 dead 2 are a better example of this since that game encourages everyone to stay together- you can't take on a horse of zombies by yourself, and everyone needs to be in a safe room to complete a level, so leaving no one behind is highly recommended. This encourages social interactions since when everyone's together everyone is naturally gonna want to work with each other and help each other out.
Last edited:
Guilty_AI
Member
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
We don't have player engagement numbers for Smash Brothers.
It sells well at full price but for all we know it could be a Sea of Thieves type (great sales, low MAU).
Guilty_AI
Member
Engagement looks fine
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
Hard to compare those numbers, if they're even accurate, with Steamcharts more visible metrics.
Guilty_AI
Member
They were shared by the game director himself so they're perfectly accurate. 90 hours for each copy of the game on average shows a great level of engagement, not to mention its always selling DLC.
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
Still hard to compare those numbers with games on Steamcharts, which are much more open and reliable. I've come to learn that when numbers are hidden, it's usually for a reason.
Guilty_AI
Member
I guarantee you the Super Smash Bros has no need to hide any numbers....
Lunarorbit
Member
That's evil lores uncle
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
Then why hide them?
It's still not helpful as the Steamcharts and XBL Chart patterns have a fairly high degree if clarity in seeing patterns develop.
Guilty_AI
Member
They aren't hiding it... they just gave the data didn't they? And thats the norm, not everyone shares the kind of detailed information steam does... including Fortnite's developer Epic, you'll at best find estimates by third parties. So, is Epic lying about Fortnite's success too?
The Stig
Member
omg did you see him playing metroid dread? so cringe.
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
This whole conversation thread doesn't interest me too much.
If I'm basing my theory on patterns seen from Steamcharts and XBL Most Played List...coming up with a left field "What about this one Nintendo game?" doesn't mean a whole lot. The Nintendo demographic is much different. The data is difficult to compare. There are things called outliers which doesn't refute broad market changes.
Plus, there's this...
Smash Ultimate players spent 2.2 billion hours playing from launch (2018) to the date of the article (2021). That's 36 months of cumulative playtime.
Fortnite players spent 3.3 billion hours playing in April 2020 alone.
36 months @ 2.2 billion hours
1 month @ 3.3 billion hours
https://www.thewrap.com/fortnite-logs-3-2-billion-hours-played-in-april/
Smash is a huge success, but no one knows how it would do if it were available on Steam.
Last edited:
Guilty_AI
Member
It means a lot when the game being discussed is directly inspired by this one nintendo game, who also happens to be a very successful title.
So, the question remains, why is smash bros a success and Multiverse isn't?
Last edited:
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
Are we sure Multiverses was inspired by Smash Bros and not...
PlayStation All Stars, which bombed on PS3.
Brawlhalla, which never got too popular on Steam/XBL
Nickelodeon All Stars, which bombed on PS/XB/PC
or all the other Smash Bros clones that no one has ever heard of?
Why are we surprised Multiverses bombed when Smash clones have always done poorly in the PC/XB/PS ecosystems? Read the market. Look at the hit rate of genres to make predictions about future games.
Last edited:
lostinblue
Banned
I don't get what does David Jaffe live from.
cash_longfellow
Member
This is legitimately all you had to post…released on ps plus as a paid game, then did so much garbage numbers that they released it as a free to play game, and still couldn’t do any kind of numbers. Game died. I love Sony normally, but f them for this sneakiness, and f any kind of Jaffe support ever again after this nonsense.
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
Sir David Jaffe answers the question "What does PlayStation need to do in order to see success in Live Service..."
(Time stamped, Duration: 60 seconds)
If you can't watch the video, he states the following:
- PlayStation should create quick, low production value multiplayer games.
- They should then create a large pool of players to "test" these concept games.
- The games that keep player interest should be built into full production multiplayer games.
Jaffe FINALLY gets it! (Mostly)
Jaffe misses the last 20% of the equation.
PlayStation already does what he's proposing.
-PlayStation has 15+ years of multiplayer analytics from PSN.
-PlayStation has access to Steamcharts, which publically tracks which games have legs and which games don't.
-PlayStation owns 5.4% of Epic Games which no doubt have detailed analytics from Fortnite and Unreal Engine games.
-PlayStation funds study after study asking gamers what games they play, why they play them, who they play them with etc...
- Sony is building a Live Service Center for Excellence to buttress their Live Service initiatives.
It basically took the analytics revolution (started by the Oakland As in 2002) roughly 15 years to be completely embraced by every major professional sport and franchise on earth. It'll take videogames half that time.
Anyway, I thought it was interesting to see how thoughts slowly shift over a period of time. Sir David Jaffe wasn't saying this 2+ years ago.
(Time stamped, Duration: 60 seconds)
If you can't watch the video, he states the following:
- PlayStation should create quick, low production value multiplayer games.
- They should then create a large pool of players to "test" these concept games.
- The games that keep player interest should be built into full production multiplayer games.
Jaffe FINALLY gets it! (Mostly)
Jaffe misses the last 20% of the equation.
PlayStation already does what he's proposing.
-PlayStation has 15+ years of multiplayer analytics from PSN.
-PlayStation has access to Steamcharts, which publically tracks which games have legs and which games don't.
-PlayStation owns 5.4% of Epic Games which no doubt have detailed analytics from Fortnite and Unreal Engine games.
-PlayStation funds study after study asking gamers what games they play, why they play them, who they play them with etc...
- Sony is building a Live Service Center for Excellence to buttress their Live Service initiatives.
It basically took the analytics revolution (started by the Oakland As in 2002) roughly 15 years to be completely embraced by every major professional sport and franchise on earth. It'll take videogames half that time.
Anyway, I thought it was interesting to see how thoughts slowly shift over a period of time. Sir David Jaffe wasn't saying this 2+ years ago.
Similar threads
- Locked