Why are we listening to people who believe great multiplayer games get boring after 10-15 hours of play?
I love you back BUT the proof is in the pudding. So many of these games- that are good- are tanking. You may disagree with my theories about why (and they may be wrong, I don't 100% know much of anything) but you can't disagree with the anemic numbers for Roller Champs, the Ubi battle Roayle game (scrapers or something), Knockoutcity is doing mid numbers, Destruction Allstars,etc.
You can SAY 'oh well, that's cause they didn't follow what I know to be the secret sauce' and that's fine but you SAYING you can crack the code means very little if none of these massive companies are utilizing your formula. And thus, there's still a problem of these games not connecting.
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.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!
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.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.
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?!?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!
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.Imagine listening to what Jaffe has to sayin 2022
The Twisted Metal Reboot (if that is what you're referring to) can only be one of two things...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 .
Jaffe? That you?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.
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.
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).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.
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.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.
Yup.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.
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.
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.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.
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.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."
I'm looking at Smash Brothers.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)
I'm looking at Smash Brothers.
So.... why that one works?
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).
[/URL]
Engagement looks fine
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.Hard to compare those numbers, if they're even accurate, with Steamcharts more visible metrics.
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.
I guarantee you the Super Smash Bros has no need to hide any numbers....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.
That's evil lores uncleWho the fuck Is David Gaf,????!!
I guarantee you the Super Smash Bros has no need to hide any numbers....
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?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.
omg did you see him playing metroid dread? so cringe.David Jaffe has been wrong about a lot of things lately.
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?
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.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.
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?