Support NeoGAF

[RickMasters]

I doubt they are too late. Companies aren't just going to stop these kind of games.

They wont...... and Ill say the same for most of them. the pie is pretty much already divided up.... There is a fatigue going on with causual gamers and GAAS gaming. Its a candle that is burning at both ends.... Its a bubble that will soon burst. There are too many of these games right now and many of the upcoming ones are gonna be DOA. Because there are simply too many of them...all donning that same Unreal engine 4 cartoony look..... all pretty much doing the same things (battle royals..remixed arena style combat etc). People are getting tired of them...GAAS is not expanding. the same big players are all making the money. and here comes sony late to the party with ten. personally id rather they used some of that money to make a new shadow of the beast game or something. but they can do what they want with their money, I guess.

 

[aclar00]

why so much hate towards GaaS? is what keeps this industry alive ( particularly the AAA space)

Cause it can only get worse...

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Then it's immediately on to the next AAA game.

immediately?

no, they usually get a well deserved rest.

One type of game pulls in a huge (you hope) lump some during the first month of a games release (every 6 years l

the bread and butter of Sony's AAA.

The other type has consistent revenue that is far more predictable + dependable.

and for that to happen (you hope) it will make enough money to mantaind an ongoing production schedule.

The second one is better.

is not one or another. is both, especially when talking about Play Station.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Cause it can only get worse...

worse than Publishers not able to survive making "Traditional Games"?

 

[vivftp]

Then how come all of a sudden all of them were roped into making GAAS titles?

Surely not all of them would get sudden inspiration or creative spark to make GAAS titles. Not at the same time at the very least.

This is too much drinking of the marketing cool aid from Sony.

Not all of SIE's studios are making live service games. I think you're confusion is that SIE has decided to push for more live service games and as a result has opened up more resources to studio who want to go that route. Hermen Hulst ain't out there with a clipboard saying, "Studio A you do a live service game. Studio B you can do a single player game. Studio C you do one of each". That's not the way it works. The studio decides what they want to do, as always, and if the studio heads decide they want to do a live service game then they do their pitch to SIE and arrange for whatever resources they need. That could be funding to expand their teams, support studios, whatever.

Look at it this way. In the past, many SIE studios would tack on a smaller multiplayer mode to their games. Uncharted had a MP mode. TLOU had a MP mode. Ghost of Tsushima had a MP mode. Well now those studios are being offered additional resources to make those games into full blown live service games, if they choose to go that route. That's what this is. With TLOU2 the MP mode was growing in ambition far more than what a normal MP mode would be, just around the same time is when SIE decided to make their live service push, so they decided to spin that off and let it grow into its own fully fledged live service game. This wasn't some mandate from above that came down, this was the studio organically shifting into making a large scale live service game.

SIE is all about giving their studios choice on what they wanna do, they only offer more avenues for those studios to go in, and offer additional resources. Those avenues include single player standard games, live service games, VR games, and now the option to port their games to either PC or mobile.

As for studios with live service titles coming out, let's take a look at that. Let's check your assertation that SIE's forcing live service games on their studios. Let's start with the long standing studios before the recent acquisitions over the past few years (Note that apparently Sony and Polyphony don't consider GT7 to be a live service game):

Naughty Dog - TLOU MP
San Diego Studio - Yearly MLB live service releases
Guerrilla - Live service Horizon game
London Studios - Live service fantasy game

So 3 existing studios doing a live service game. While Naughty Dog and Guerrilla are also working on additional single player content at the same time. Does this look forced to you?

Well let's look at the studios Sony has acquired since 2019 who're doing live service or possible live service games if we're unsure:

Bungie - Continuing Destiny 2, new live service game codename Matter, and another live service game Marathon
Insomniac - We know they've been hiring for some sort of Multiplayer project, but we don't yet know if it's a separate live service game or just a MP mode for one of their other games
Haven - AAA live service project
Firesprite - They've been hiring for a multiplayer shooter, maybe Twisted Metal? Unsure if it's live service

From the above list Insomniac and Firesprite are continuing to work on multiple single player games while possibly also working on live service games. Bungie was already doing and planning to do more live service games. Haven is a brand new studio whose first project they pitched to Sony was a live service game (well, they pitched several ideas and Sony wanted them to do all of them, but Haven settled on one to start). Does this scream "we're being forced to do live service games!" to you?

How about the third parties making live service games for SIE?

Deviation Games - Brand new studio formed who pitched a live service game to SIE as their first title
Firewalk Games - Brand new studio formed to do a live service game for SIE
First Contact Games - Making Firewall Ultra for PSVR2. It's multiplayer, and many suspect it falls under the live service banner
Arrowhead Games - Leaks show they're making Helldivers 2, another live service game. The first game was a MP title, so the second becoming a live service game is a logical next step


So who's being forced from that lineup, huh? No, there's no kool-aid being drunk here. It's plain and simple facts. If SIE were in the habit of forcing their studios to work on certain projects don't you think half their studios would be churning out PSVR2 titles? The studio chooses their path and SIE supplies the resources. No one at all is being forced to make live service games.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Horizon and TLOU Online are expected to be big successes, in my opinion. Most of the others would fail.

If they release a separate Ghost of Tsushima MP game (which I believe) is coming, it will also be a moderate success -- less than Horizon and TLOU.

I think Haven's game might also be a surprise hit that would mostly remain under-radar but will always surprise us whenever they reveal how many active players it has and the revenue it generates. It'll be that type of a game.

Firewalk's game might be a big dud (don't know why, just have a feeling that it won't do anything special). Deviation will also succeed (relatively).

 

[PeteBull]

why so much hate towards GaaS? is what keeps this industry alive ( particularly the AAA space)

Nope, it makes sure more games are flopping/more studios getting closed, just look whats gonna happen to rocksteady and its newest GaaS Suicide Squad: kill the Justice leage- that got delayed coz its so shit, btw- its so shit its beyond repair and no delay will make it ok non gaas game- its gonna bomb hard and dev studio gonna get closed/ppl gonna get laid off.

 

[[Sigma]]

Most will fail. Some will see moderate success. None will become a Fortnite, Warzone nor even Apex Legends in terms of success.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

Not all of SIE's studios are making live service games. I think you're confusion is that SIE has decided to push for more live service games and as a result has opened up more resources to studio who want to go that route. Hermen Hulst ain't out there with a clipboard saying, "Studio A you do a live service game. Studio B you can do a single player game. Studio C you do one of each". That's not the way it works. The studio decides what they want to do, as always, and if the studio heads decide they want to do a live service game then they do their pitch to SIE and arrange for whatever resources they need.

How do you know all this stuff dude??

Privy to insider information/ board room meetings.

I know, all the "creative freedom for developers" is result of marketing campaign run during Shu Yoshida years.

They used to makes games that somewhat justified that narrative as well, back then.

These days nobody talks about it. And their output speaks for itself.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Let's see how it plays out. It's gonna be tough out there....you could say they are years late, but a quality game is a quality game and can hopefully gain enough of a userbase to be fruitful for them and provide an awesome experience for its dedicated fanbase.

I expect initial hype on here, then them slipping into obscurity on this forum to be talked about for a page or 2 when new content comes and some will die off and hopefully a few stick around and provide some great fun with a great free to play model that makes you want to contribute to the continuation of the title.

 

[Warablo]

I feel like too many are in development and could cannibalize their player base. If they are lucky, 1 or 2 will catch on. I also expect most of them might even release on PC at the same time as Playstation.

 

[Spitfire098]

Naughty Dog goated, so not worried about their new upcoming game.

 

[mdkirby]

Two big successes. A couple of it did alright. The rest mega flops.

Will one of those big successes end up a Fortnite or cod scale unicorn? No idea, they’d have to be pretty damn lucky. Nothing we know of currently will be able to hit the “kids” crowd like Fortnite. And cod does so well partly because it’s been running so many years; you can’t just make a direct competitor in your first release.

Even the crazy financial success of Fortnite was aided by predatory practices that have since seen them slapped with astronomical fines. So even if they replicate it’s general attach rate success, it won’t be on the same scale financially.

 

[vivftp]

How do you know all this stuff dude??

Privy to insider information/ board room meetings.

I know, all the "creative freedom for developers" is result of marketing campaign run during Shu Yoshida years.

They used to makes games that somewhat justified that narrative as well, back then.

These days nobody talks about it. And their output speaks for itself.

Various PlayStation Studios have gone on record over the years on the level of autonomy that SIE gives them. Hell, Neil just reiterated it a week ago on the Kinda Funny stream when discussing TLOU HBO's final episode.

Why not address the rest of the post where I called out your insinuation that PlayStation Studios were being forced into live service games where I showed that only 3 who previously didn't do live service games were now doing them. Most of the live service games SIE are making are either brand new studios on their first game or partner studios. Again, no one is being forced and the studios chart their own course.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

Various PlayStation Studios have gone on record over the years on the level of autonomy that SIE gives them. Hell, Neil just reiterated it a week ago on the Kinda Funny stream when discussing TLOU HBO's final episode.

Again, it's funny how easily you fall for it.

If say, Factions 2 was a break out success and started doing Fortnite numbers, will he just stop supporting it later cause studio was sick of making skins for battle pass?

Don't think so. Unless he do something bold like this, am wary to believe creative freedom is being practiced in true sense.

Why not address the rest of the post where I called out your insinuation that PlayStation Studios were being forced into live service games where I showed that only 3 who previously didn't do live service games were now doing them. Most of the live service games SIE are making are either brand new studios on their first game or partner studios. Again, no one is being forced and the studios chart their own course.

I didn't address rest of the post cause it was mostly speculation.

I don't have anything to say about that. Except, only their output can be basis to judge if they have creative freedom or not. Which points towards it not being the case.

Hard to believe all studios were filled with desire to make GAAS titles at same time.

 

[vkbest]

There is no market for so much GAAS we have already. Single player games works because people beat them and play other new single player game, but in GAAS you need people abandoning the game they are playing to play your new game. I suppose everyone want their own Fortnite, Genshin Impact, LOL, etc but the most games will fail.

 

[kicker]

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/crea...tity-the-next-multiplayer-phenomenon.1632518/

I was type out this long response exaining why I think your rubric is too vague, doesn't factor marketing enough, and ultimately doesn't hold up across enough games (pre-launch) for certainty (I would've used steam's top played/mp game award winners. It would've been the best. Tremendous writeup. They say they haven't even seen writeups like that on here) but then I went to sleep and lost the drive.

Instead, how about you give me 5-10 upcoming games that score a 4 or 3 across all four points of your rubric and I can check in on them in a few years

 

[Demon2blades]

If they are on all platforms then there's potential for a few success stories especially bungies new game but if they are console/pc exclusive then no I can't see any of them being a success imo .

 

[vivftp]

Again, it's funny how easily you fall for it.

If say, Factions 2 was a break out success and started doing Fortnite numbers, will he just stop supporting it later cause studio was sick of making skins for battle pass?

Don't think so. Unless he do something bold like this, am wary to believe creative freedom is being practiced in true sense.



I didn't address rest of the post cause it was mostly speculation.

I don't have anything to say about that. Except, only their output can be basis to judge if they have creative freedom or not. Which points towards it not being the case.

Hard to believe all studios were filled with desire to make GAAS titles at same time.

Well, feel free to ignore direct statements from studios and the evidence presented to you with the listing of the studios making these games and continue your, "trust me bro" conspiracy bullshit that they're all lying. Good day to you.

 

[Evil Calvin]

Very few GAAS do well, and if they do ok then it's usually for a short period.

Obviously they want the constant influx of cash from MTX, much like how mobile games are loaded with MTX and ads

How many GAAS really stand the test of time? It would behoove them to make new IP's which can be 10 million + sellers and then create sequels, spinoffs and ....ahem.....TV shows.

GAAS has a short tail.

 

[GymWolf]

Not a fan.

I prefer when a team work on a single game and not multiple games at once.

Every dev wasted on gaas is a dev that is not working on single player projects and i don't buy a sony console for gaas and multyplayer titles.

 

[BbMajor7th]

A highly competitive and cannibalistic market. Engagement is a major metric for the success of these games and most people will only have time for one or two major service titles in their lives. The success of any single service title will inevitably come at the expense of others and, even then, they'll need to fend off competition from little games like Fortnite, GTAO, Apex Legends and FIFA. While single-player games that stumble out of the blocks can recoup costs over time, and are a shoe-in for ports, remasters and re-releases (especially if they develop cult status, like Demon's Souls), service titles are much more high risk: upkeep is pricy, even without factoring in ongoing development, marketing, etc., content is largely disposable, and your game is only ever as good as its player count.

All in all, I'd say it's a fairly significant gamble, but companies have to keep growing and it's hard to imagine Sony pushing their prestige single-player model to much greater heights.

 

[yurinka]

As we know, a successful GAAS title needs content, a decent roadmap and fixes along the way.

Currently Sony would classify the following released games as GAAS:

Gran Turismo 7
MLB the Show
Destiny 2

Unreleased we know that the following are GAAS or will have GAAS elements :

The Last of Us Online
Twisted Metal
Horizon Online
Firewalk’s game
Haven’s
Studio London’s Fantasy London game
Deviation’s game
Bungie’s new IP

It would be freakishly uncommon if all of these games are going to be hits and grow into huge income makers for Sony.

My question is this - which of these will make it, and if they don’t, what will become of the studio? Do you think we’ll see an Activision scenario where more and more studios are pulled on to support the big successes, or will SIE allow them to develop new IPs?

Huge success, the biggest one ever for their teams:
Bungie new IP in development #1 (the next step in GaaS after Destiny, PUBG, Fornite and GTA Online)
Destiny 2
TLOU Online (narrative of the ND SP level integrated in MP games)
Bungie new IP in development #2 (a different MP shooter IP compared to whatever else Sony is working on, maybe an extraction shooter, a survival, a Battlefield like large team based MP game or something like that)
Deviation new IP (Sony's CoD)
Firewalk new IP (Sony's non-Bungie Halo but something different and complementary enough to whatever Bungie is doing)
GT7
Horizon Online
Insomniac GaaS (if they ever exist)
Haven new IP (PS Home 2+Animal Crossing+Little Big Planet/Dreams+Fortnite+Sims)

Moderate success:
GoT Online (if it ever exist in addition to GoT2)
Helldivers 2 (Sony's Gears of War but focused on coop and humor)
Bend Studio new IP (Days Gone MP on steroids but using a new IP)
MLB
London Studio new IP

Won't make it:
Twisted Metal (if it ever exist, I'd prefer to put Firewalk to work instead in VR friendly Wipeout or Motorstorm since they have many devs from these series)

I think most of them will be successful. At a similar level of the previous projects of these devs or more.

A highly competitive and cannibalistic market.

It depends how similar they are. The audience of GT is totally different from the one from MLB and the one from Destiny and the one from TLOU etc. I assume they want to do different GaaS for different tastes and niches.

And also for the biggest ones -the CoD/Fortnite/GTA Online- I assume they may make a couple differentiated bets to make sure at least one of them hits the bullseye.

why so much hate towards GaaS? is what keeps this industry alive ( particularly the AAA space)

Humans beings typically reject and fear the new and different things that may replace them/the things they already have and like.

GaaS means adding a considerable post launch support to keep the game fresh and alive more time, which is a good concept. Same goes with the F2P concept, to start playing a game for free avoiding a starting paywall is a good concept. GaaS/F2P being the majority of the gaming revenue shows that players prefer them over the traditional paid game with no post launch content model.

The problem is particular bad implementations where their design is too aggresive to bump monetization, retention and engagement negatively affecting the game experience. GaaS and F2P -specially in the AAA area- are something relatively new and young so like everything they still have to keep iterating and evolving the formula to end achieving something where everyone is happy.

If say, Factions 2 was a break out success and started doing Fortnite numbers, will he just stop supporting it later cause studio was sick of making skins for battle pass?

It's stupid to consider TLOU Online/Factions 2 is aiming to achieve Fortnite numbers.

They are simply branching out the MP mode from TLOU/Uncharted to a separate game where they can grow the concept to turn it a separate game on its own and will add in some way their top tier narrative stuff on top to differentiate it from the other MP games and also to appeal more their SP players to join it.

The ND game modes were very good, and the TLOU IP is so powerful with the two previous games being 20M+ seller material plus now the tv show being a big hit. Considering the extra revenue from microtransactions, dlcs and passes pretty likely this game will end generating more revenue than TLOU and TLOU2.

But for several reasons very likely won't be as successful as Fortnite:

1. Fortnite is a unicorn so only a handful games will outperform it. Maybe one of the upcoming Bungie new IPs.
2. TLOU will be a PS exclusive, maybe a PS console exclusive so won't be money on platforms where Fortnite is like Switch or Xbox and maybe PC.
3. TLOU is for adults which means that they'll skip all the kids and teenager audience who play Fortnite.
4. It's the biggest ND project ever, which means it's going to be so fucking expensive and since they release 20M+seller material will be a paid game like CoD, Destiny, Rainbow Six or Battlefield, won't be F2P. Which will also reduce the potential audience.

Most GaaS make more revenue with the addons (passes, DLC, MTX) than selling the game itself even in paid GaaS that sell a shit ton like FIFA. This is the main reason of why they make GaaS games. Regarding the skins, they can be outsourced to any random outsourcing studio.

 

[aclar00]

worse than Publishers not able to survive making "Traditional Games"?

That seems a bit exaggerated. I dont know the metrics, but i just dont see how traditional games wouldnt allow publishers to survive. I actually believe it may be the opposite.

Making a GAAS game seems like a hhuuuuge gamble in comparison, one that, if it doesnt pay off will require traditional games to balance it out.

If anything, it seems GAAS games were created solely to increase profits and please shareholders.

With that said, i would be interested in seeing the balance sheets.

 

[Punished Miku]

There is no market for so much GAAS we have already. Single player games works because people beat them and play other new single player game, but in GAAS you need people abandoning the game they are playing to play your new game. I suppose everyone want their own Fortnite, Genshin Impact, LOL, etc but the most games will fail.

Very similar lesson was learned in the MMO rush. If you think about it from the perspective of a suit just looking at numbers, I guess it makes sense. They see the potential money so it makes sense for everyone to try it. Then they all fail at the same time, because people can really only play 1 of these at a time, if that. Then no one makes them anymore.

These are basically just MMO Jr. so they will probably hang around longer after the bust, since the investment isn't as high as those.

As for Sony, I have no idea honestly. Pretty difficult to predict what is going to succeed or fail before games are even announced.

 

[AJUMP23]

I personally am not a huge fan of GAAS games but they make a lot of money, that is what I assume they will make sony money.

 

[TheDreadLord]

I’ll tell you the outcome: a bunch of studios closed (as Sony has always done)

 

[yurinka]

They wont...... and Ill say the same for most of them. the pie is pretty much already divided up.... There is a fatigue going on with causual gamers and GAAS gaming. Its a candle that is burning at both ends.... Its a bubble that will soon burst. There are too many of these games right now and many of the upcoming ones are gonna be DOA. Because there are simply too many of them...all donning that same Unreal engine 4 cartoony look..... all pretty much doing the same things (battle royals..remixed arena style combat etc). People are getting tired of them...GAAS is not expanding. the same big players are all making the money. and here comes sony late to the party with ten. personally id rather they used some of that money to make a new shadow of the beast game or something. but they can do what they want with their money, I guess.

You're totally wrong. The market data says the opposite. It says GaaS make more than half of the gaming revenue and that it's the fastest growing area since many years ago. It also says that most of the top grossing AAA games are GaaS.

I’ll tell you the outcome: a bunch of studios closed (as Sony has always done)

GT7 is the fastest selling Polyphony game ever, moving MLB to GaaS and multi made the recent MLB game the top grossing Sony San Diego games ever and Destiny 2 is the top grossing Bungie game ever. All Media Molecule games (LBP and Dreams were GaaS) have been profitable. Sony has also released many non GaaS super successful games in recent years.

All their teams currently working on GaaS titles, including 2nd party ones, come for working on very successful titles before (with London Studio as the exception), most of them top tier stuff and for GaaS they'll have the help and knowledge from a major player, the ones who broke the record for the fastest selling new IP ever in gaming history: Destiny. They won't shut down a single studio.

Why not address the rest of the post where I called out your insinuation that PlayStation Studios were being forced into live service games where I showed that only 3 who previously didn't do live service games were now doing them. Most of the live service games SIE are making are either brand new studios on their first game or partner studios. Again, no one is being forced and the studios chart their own course.

Hermen also mentioned that them growing to also approach GaaS/MP, mobile and PC won't be at the expense of their traditional SP PS only blockbusters. That new stuff would be on top of what they already have. In fact, they are working in more non-GaaS titles than before and in more console only releases than before.

They have been and will continue acquiring teams to work on that, plus also have been growing during years their previously existing studios and will continue growing them. Also, like a third or more of these GaaS titles (Deviation, Firewalk, Arrowhead, Haven before acquired) will be 2nd party, not developed by internal Sony studios.

 

[8BiTw0LF]

My biggest concern is Sony bought Bungie to guide them through the GaaS landscape - and if Bungie are trying to implement their over 20 year old casual controller settings in every Sony GaaS game. Huge deadzones and extreme aim-assist, so your grandpa can be just as good as you at gaming.

 

[BbMajor7th]

It depends how similar they are. The audience of GT is totally different from the one from MLB and the one from Destiny and the one from TLOU etc. I assume they want to do different GaaS for different tastes and niches.

Not necessarily - they're all designed to be time sinks and at their most successful they'll have you logging on for several hours every day. In my experience, people big into service titles often play them to the exclusion of much else and service titles live or die on whether or not they can cultivate that hardcore base - it's less about competition for genres or market segments, but more about competition for attention. I have a couple of friends who play Destiny 2 religiously. They'll buy big new games they want to play, but a lot of them sit there in the cellophane waiting to be played, because they're too busy on the Destiny treadmill.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

I was type out this long response exaining why I think your rubric is too vague, doesn't factor marketing enough, and ultimately doesn't hold up across enough games (pre-launch) for certainty (I would've used steam's top played/mp game award winners. It would've been the best. Tremendous writeup. They say they haven't even seen writeups like that on here) but then I went to sleep and lost the drive.

Instead, how about you give me 5-10 upcoming games that score a 4 or 3 across all four points of your rubric and I can check in on them in a few years

We don't have too many upcoming multiplayer games (with gameplay) right now that I think are good bets. Titles greenlit pre 2018 Battle Royale paradigm shift are often built on weak fundamentals. There seems to be some positivity around The Finals but I don't see it having great legs using the rubric.

Of the games we've gotten a glimpse of, I'm most intrigued with Renown and Pax Dei. Factions 2, Blizzards survival game, and Bungies Tarkov like games are probably good bets too but we haven't seen anything from those titles.

I will say, in multiplayer, marketing really doesn't matter. If you can get a thousand people playing your game at release then the game lives or dies based off the following...

- Do the players currently playing want to continue? Are they telling their friends "Hey, you should play this game with me it's really good."

This is why multiplayer is the best. It's the purist form of gaming. Unmolested by marketing, graphics, hype etc...

 

[Badlucktroll]

I think if bungie makes some crazy game it’ll do good

 

[Radical Dreamer]

90% of them wont make it through one year lmao

 

[Woggleman]

IF TLOU Factions is a hit I really hope ND does not go the way of Rockstar with their obsession with online.

 

[Jack Package]

There's a rumour that pops back up every so often that Bungie are reimagining Marathon as a 3 player co-op pve thing that's f2p.
They are one of the few studios that have GaaS working (please note, I said "working", not "working well"). That's probably Sony's best shot out of that list.


Can't wait for this fad to die.

 

[EN250]

What makes people feel like Factions 2 will be a guaranteed and huge success?

Factions carved its own niche, but that don't apply to the casual crowd, casuals want the Fortnite battlepass, buying skins, build crap BR stuff, with levels up, numbers up and well the core PvP of course, I don't see them tinkering with building and maintaining npc population, resource management and anything that takes time and has a chance to be lost due to rules applied to the game or players ruining it for them

Unless Factions 2 has nothing of what makes the first one unique and it's just the standard #9157 attempt at a BR-PvP game

Same goes with the rumors of a Twisted Metal revival, that game Destruction All Stars was DOA before Sony wised up and gave it away on Plus, then the content updates were lacking and it became more irrelevant that it already was

People laugh at Sony for buying Bungie or overpaying, but at least Bungie are known quality, they're masters of their craft, what was the last huge 1P multiplayer game?

 

[yurinka]

What makes people feel like Factions 2 will be a guaranteed and huge success?

Factions carved its own niche, but that don't apply to the casual crowd, casuals want the Fortnite battlepass, buying skins, build crap BR stuff, with levels up, numbers up and well the core PvP of course, I don't see them tinkering with building and maintaining npc population, resource management and anything that takes time and has a chance to be lost due to rules applied to the game or players ruining it for them

Unless Factions 2 has nothing of what makes the first one unique and it's just the standard #9157 attempt at a BR-PvP game

Same goes with the rumors of a Twisted Metal revival, that game Destruction All Stars was DOA before Sony wised up and gave it away on Plus, then the content updates were lacking and it became more irrelevant that it already was

You call it Factions 2 but the concept isn't to make the TLOU2 version of the Factions mode. In fact Druckmann doesn't call it Factions 2, he calls it TLOU Online and says it's the biggest ND biggest game ever and that they'll introduce there their iconic narrative.

I assume it's going have a structure more similar to The Division or Destiny instead: an somewhat interconnected world where there are different areas for different game modes being only one of them Factions-like matches, and having at least one of these areas a somewhat linear narrative based story that would make it more appealing to "casual"/single player fans.

They could also split their narrative parts into 'episodes' that could be like part of the Destiny 2 expansions-like or Fortnite seasons-like content.

People laugh at Sony for buying Bungie or overpaying, but at least Bungie are known quality, they're masters of their craft, what was the last huge 1P multiplayer game?

GT7 had the fastest selling launch of its IP, which means that if continues that pace would outsell the best selling game in the series going at least beyond 15M units sold.

People laugh at Sony for buying Bungie or overpaying, but at least Bungie are known quality, they're masters of their craft, what was the last huge 1P multiplayer game?

I'm pretty sure that Bungie will be a better deal than the Insomniac acquisition. I think that between Destiny 2, the at least couple of other IPs they have under development, what Bungie dould add via their mobile gaming/tv show or movies adaptations they have in the works, and their help the other around half a dozen GaaS they have in the works, Sony will recoup the acquisition maybe even before the release of PS6.

 

[diffusionx]

Most of this stuff fails. There’s a limit to how much can succeed because it’s virtually impossible to play more than one and take part in the full range of activities. It’s also really hard to break through considering how popular the big games are.

So, I predict most will be somewhere around Destruction All Stars, but they really only need one to be a hit to justify the expenditure.

 

[KungFucius]

Excuse me but what is a GAAS Title??

A game that has next to no content at launch and slowly adds repetitive grindy bullshit every month or so to ty to coax users into buying shit. Or Gallium Arsenide (GaAs).

 

[kicker]

The Finals

Yeah, I also don't see this having staying power, but the devs seem ready to adapt

Renown and Pax Dei. Factions 2, Blizzards survival game, and Bungies Tarkov like games

Pax Dei seems good. Not a particularly novel idea, but maybe they'll get it right this time
Will look up Renown too.

I will say, in multiplayer, marketing really doesn't matter. If you can get a thousand people playing your game at release then the game lives or dies based off the following...

- Do the players currently playing want to continue? Are they telling their friends "Hey, you should play this game with me it's really good."

Well, I mostly agree. But within marketing is the inital reaction a friend will have after being shown the game:
It usually goes like: Friend gets linked a trailer, or a twitch streamer playing the game. Friend watches for a while. If they like the concept they then look for information on whether the game is f2p or not.
It's one of the reasons a lot of people I know (anectodal, but, eh, I don't have nuch else) got into apex after checking out a few streamers playing on that surprise launch day. "Oh, looks like cod. Is it free? Nice, let me start the download"

I guess over a long enough period of time, it won't matter. As long as servers are up and the game is good/appealing enough players will come.

Anyway, we'll see if your rubric holds out in a year or two

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

What makes people feel like Factions 2 will be a guaranteed and huge success?

It boils down to people thinking Naughty Dog will pick the right multiplayer genre this time (Rust, Ark, Tarkov, or Battle Royale format) and they have the resources to get it right earlier than their AAA competitors.

Open world multiplayer is the next big thing and we haven't seen a bunch of AAA studios give it a shot.

 

[Dr. Claus]

GAAS is a cancer to the industry and only produces worse games.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Instead, how about you give me 5-10 upcoming games that score a 4 or 3 across all four points of your rubric and I can check in on them in a few years

PS: I created the rubric after noticing which games were flopping and which were succeeding over the last 5 or so years. It felt like a sea change had occurred in the multiplayer space recently.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

GAAS is a cancer to the industry and only produces worse games.

The reason why this is false...

SP games can release mediocrity repeatedly because SP gamers throw out games so quickly. Calisto Protocol...Dead Space Remake...Resident Evil 4 Remake...Play a game in a week or two and you immediately start thirsting for the next similar (not better) experience.

Mediocrity thrives because gamers are constantly starved in SP.

F2P GAAS punishes mediocrity severely on the market. You can't release a worse version of Fortnite a year later because gamers want the best. They aren't cheap, throwaway experiences. Multiplayer requires real advancement and uniqueness in the market in order to get noticed and cultivate a player base.

Mediocrity is punished because gamers are constantly fed in MP. We aren't desperate.

 

[Badlucktroll]

Bungie gonna make for them a Playstation owned Fortnite equivalent.

 

[Danjin44]

 

[Dr. Claus]

The reason why this is false...

SP games can release mediocrity repeatedly because SP gamers throw out games so quickly. Calisto Protocol...Dead Space Remake...Resident Evil 4 Remake...Play a game in a week or two and you immediately start thirsting for the next similar (not better) experience.

Mediocrity thrives because gamers are constantly starved in SP.

F2P GAAS punishes mediocrity severely on the market. You can't release a worse version of Fortnite a year later because gamers want the best. They aren't cheap, throwaway experiences. Multiplayer requires real advancement and uniqueness in the market in order to get noticed and cultivate a player base.

Mediocrity is punished because gamers are constantly fed in MP. We aren't desperate.

A good game sells. GAAS aren't good games. They are unfinished games. Just because you are gullible enough to buy and gladly bend over for companies to continue to rail you doesn't mean others are.

 

[EN250]

The reason why this is false...

SP games can release mediocrity repeatedly because SP gamers throw out games so quickly. Calisto Protocol...Dead Space Remake...Resident Evil 4 Remake...Play a game in a week or two and you immediately start thirsting for the next similar (not better) experience.

Mediocrity thrives because gamers are constantly starved in SP.

F2P GAAS punishes mediocrity severely on the market. You can't release a worse version of Fortnite a year later because gamers want the best. They aren't cheap, throwaway experiences. Multiplayer requires real advancement and uniqueness in the market in order to get noticed and cultivate a player base.

Mediocrity is punished because gamers are constantly fed in MP. We aren't desperate.

SP games are not "mediocrity" and people buy and thirst for the next game because that's how SP games works, you play, do everything you want with them and move on, Open World games work the same, just add more padding to fill the maps, to take more time to finish, but when players are done, they proceed to the next game they want, since when that's a bad thing?

 

[vaibhavpisal]

SP games are not "mediocrity" and people buy and thirst for the next game because that's how SP games works, you play, do everything you want with them and move on, Open World games work the same, just add more padding to fill the maps, to take more time to finish, but when players are done, they proceed to the next game they want, since when that's a bad thing?

You can spin things the way you want.

It's undeniable that multiplayer games are more "fun" of the two, for most part.

But you can spin it into endless, meaningless grind like a lot of posts are doing here.

 

[Dr. Claus]

You can spin things the way you want.

It's undeniable that multiplayer games are more "fun" of the two, for most part.

But you can spin it into endless, meaningless grind like a lot of posts are doing here.