Support NeoGAF

[Men_in_Boxes]

The Finals has an open beta this week (ending in a couple of days). Long story short, it's great.




Embark created an arena shooter that encourages social play, offers a variety of playstyles to gravitate to, and gives everyone a chance at making "the big play". Three things that are exponentially more important than gunfeel, theme, and TTK.

This is certain to lodge itself somewhere in the top 30 on Steamcharts and top 20 on the console played charts for at least a year.

When this happens, will we still have to hear how Live Service is a crapshoot? How these companies have to throw games randomly at a wall in order to see what sticks? Or can we move on from that and start identifying the characteristics of a good multiplayer game?

Can we, as a community, evolve our thinking about an industry that is ever changing?

 

[StueyDuck]

It'll be big for a month but no one can say for sure how it's going to end up without knowing their post game support

 

[graywolf323]

 

[Shut0wen]

It'll be big for a month but no one can say for sure how it's going to end up

Pretty much what this guy said, though it has potential for how shite over watch 2 is atm, cant see blizzard making it any fun, ultimately itll end up like that portal fps shooter and probs dead after 3 months

 

[Xtib81]

It remains to be seen whether the game will have legs or not.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

It'll be big for a month but no one can say for sure how it's going to end up without knowing their post game support

I don't think this is accurate.

Chess doesn't have "post game support". Chess is fun because the base game has so much variability and depth. People play it because hour 5,000 is still fun so many.

Post launch support is needed on games that lack that depth. A multiplayer game that gets stale after hour 10 or 20 requires post launch support because the core design is so weak.

The Finals core is sound. It doesn't get stale quickly.

 

[Jigsaah]

It's not that complicated. A good game is a good game. It's really just that simple. Doesn't matter if it's GaaS or not.

 

[Arsic]

I just don't see the crack factor here. This isn't something I want to go back to. I do like the character customization and them giving me a ton of currency in beta to customize my guy.

After a few matches of this though it feels like I've done and seen all it has to offer.

On the flip side I've been trying Valorant and CS2 again. These games are timeless fun and the support at least valorant gets is superb. New maps, agents, seasons etc keep making the game strategies evolve along with balance.

 

[64gigabyteram]

The Finals has an open beta this week (ending in a couple of days). Long story short, it's great.




Embark created an arena shooter
Arena Shooter
Arena Shooter

It's not hitting big bro.

Arena Shooters are glorious but the masses do not like them.

 

[Ronin_7]

Game is great but I couldn't care less about GaaS.

 

[Ev1L AuRoN]

I didn't like it, the controls don't feel precise, at least on PS5. The concept seems cool and all but I didn't had much fun playing it.

 

[Holammer]

It's no Apex, servers turned off after 2 year'ish.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

OP, I think you're mistaken on what the counter-argument you're responding to even is.

I don't think anyone seriously makes the argument that excellent GaaS games being successful are more about blind luck than the quality of the game or any other factor.

That said, it's pretty crystal clear that making games in general is hard and even the best studios sometimes miss the mark when trying to build something that's outside of their comfort zone. So making a live service game that ultimately becomes successful can make that situation even harder, due to the sheer difference in scope of most AAA live service games.

Nevertheless, I agree with your premise. In that, if the devs are talented enough, they have enough dev time and resources, and they make the right decisions in planning out their live service games (i.e. at this point it's just learning from the hard lessons suffered by all the devs who have gone before them), then it becomes quite deterministic as to whether the Live Service is successful or not.... that said, success =/= an uber franchise like Fortnite that makes multiple billions of dollars a year.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

It's not hitting big bro.

Arena Shooters are glorious but the masses do not like them.

Overwatch 2 is still pretty big. I'm expecting this to do about as well on console and hit bigger on Steam.

 

[SantaC]

I hope this game suceeds since resetera hates it and want all devs fired.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

OP, I think you're mistaken on what the counter-argument you're responding to even is.

I don't think anyone seriously makes the argument that excellent GaaS games being successful are more about blind luck than the quality of the game or any other factor.

Perhaps I'm interacting with the bottom feeders, but I get the impression this is exactly what they're saying.

I think there's a lot of gamers that have prosopagnosia (can't recognize faces) when it comes to multiplayer quality + depth. If you don't interact with multiplayer, then they all become one blurry mess to you.

I think a loooot of people here couldn't tell you why Knockout City flopped and Fortnite hit big. The opposite reception to both titles confuses them so they say "GAAS is all luck".

 

[MiguelItUp]

It's not that complicated. A good game is a good game. It's really just that simple. Doesn't matter if it's GaaS or not.

Exactly. I think The Finals has some neat qualities, but I don't think it'll be come a "hit" by any means. I haven't even really seen any of the few streamers I follow playing it. A lot of them played it for a bit the day the open beta started, or a day or two after, but now they've already moved on to other things and don't even talk about it anymore.

Now of course I could be wrong and it becomes fairly successful, but I dunno, something about it doesn't feel like it has staying power.

 

[The Stig]

Oh another bright multiplayer arena shooter.

Moving on.

My opinion on Gaas is not dependent on the success of this game. I hate Gaas now and I'll hate it after this comes out.

Also got my fill of that arena shooter shit with Quake 3.

I want actual content in my games thanks.

edit - also what is this talk of luck?

edit2 - can you add another option of "IDGAF"?

 

[StueyDuck]

I don't think this is accurate.

Chess doesn't have "post game support". Chess is fun because the base game has so much variability and depth. People play it because hour 5,000 is still fun so many.

Post launch support is needed on games that lack that depth. A multiplayer game that gets stale after hour 10 or 20 requires post launch support because the core design is so weak.

The Finals core is sound. It doesn't get stale quickly.

I mean being so confident about anything that has literally 0 tangible evidence of being true is a bit silly.

The accurate thing is that everyone loved and was amazed at evolve before it launched and died faster than you could say it's name. Everyone professed the death of BF2042 and its having record numbers of players

The only accurate thing here is that we just don't know how it will do other than the short term which will be good for a few months probably.

Embark also have an entire second free to play game they are working on, they will be spread thin either way because they aren't a huge massive AAA studio

 

[Spyxos]

I played few rounds it wasn't bad, i had some fun, but it was not really special or memorable. And TTK is too long. So nothing for me.

 

[tmlDan]

The games fun for a weekend then it gets stale....its like a normal arena based game without any significant updates or changes from match to match.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

I mean being so confident about anything that has literally 0 tangible evidence of being true is a bit silly.

The accurate thing is that everyone loved and was amazed at evolve before it launched and died faster than you could say it's name. Everyone professed the death of BF2042 and its having record numbers of players.

False. So much false.

You're conflating what the "games industry" said about Evolve, with how multiplayer gamers reacted to Evolve.

Games industry types are overwhelmingly single player gamers. They don't understand multiplayer.

If you recall the early reaction to PUBG and Fortnite, the opposite effect took place. Game industry types wrote both titles off at launch. Multiplayer gamers played the heck out of both titles despite what games media said about them.

Additionally, you hear these same types say "If your GAAS title doesn't hit big out of the gate, then your title is DOA." The evidence says the opposite as there are countless examples of Live Service games steadily growing their metrics via smart fixes + additions.

Personally, I wanted to love Evolve and hate The Finals. Spies vs Mercs was one of my favorite multiplayer titles and I can't stand arena shooters. It took me about 2 hours to know Evolve was trash (running simulator) and about 5 hours to know The Finals has "it".

This stuff is knowable if you look at the right evidence.

 

[Jigsaah]

Exactly. I think The Finals has some neat qualities, but I don't think it'll be come a "hit" by any means. I haven't even really seen any of the few streamers I follow playing it. A lot of them played it for a bit the day the open beta started, or a day or two after, but now they've already moved on to other things and don't even talk about it anymore.

Now of course I could be wrong and it becomes fairly successful, but I dunno, something about it doesn't feel like it has staying power.

I've only seen Shroud playing it a lot. I've played a few rounds and while there's some cool parts about it, I feel that the game showy kinda set piece they've gone with kinda makes me feel like the game is not really serious. Like the stakes don't really matter.

You could have the same objectives set in a much more serious setting and I'd probably appreciate it more. For example instead of a game show, what if were a derelict, post apocalyptic game where technology has led to AI deeming humans as pets. The vaults are food, medical and building supplies provided by the AI at drop points. The AI determines that survival of the fittest is an appropriate way to determine what humans are logically more useful to future survival of its race. So they must fight for the supplies using the sophisticated and rudimentary tools the AI Overlord has provided. You could even have a mode where you can use the supplies you've gathered to ensure your in-game family is fed, healthy and has a better roof over it's head.

In this type of setting, the gameplay could be completely the same, just the aesthetic would change, the atmosphere would change and it would give a sense of the stakes at hand. I dunno, that would be more appealing to me.

 

[StueyDuck]

I

False. So much false.

You're conflating what the "games industry" said about Evolve, with how multiplayer gamers reacted to Evolve.

Games industry types are overwhelmingly single player gamers. They don't understand multiplayer.

If you recall the early reaction to PUBG and Fortnite, the opposite effect took place. Game industry types wrote both titles off at launch. Multiplayer gamers played the heck out of both titles despite what games media said about them.

Additionally, you hear these same types say "If your GAAS title doesn't hit big out of the gate, then your title is DOA." The evidence says the opposite as there are countless examples of Live Service games steadily growing their metrics via smart fixes + additions.

Personally, I wanted to love Evolve and hate The Finals. Spies vs Mercs was one of my favorite multiplayer titles and I can't stand arena shooters. It took me about 2 hours to know Evolve was trash (running simulator) and about 5 hours to know The Finals has "it".

This stuff is knowable if you look at the right evidence.

I mean do you have any evidence on any of this besides the fact that you enjoyed the game during a Playtest.

There is no tangible evidence or historic precedent pointing to the Finals being a sure fire hit and lasting forever.

Most people hated R6 Siege at launch and its still going stronger than ever. LoL was always considered ripoff Dota. There's just nothing that confirms a game is going to take off.

If there was such evidence then all MP games would nail it

 

[MaKTaiL]

It's not that complicated. A good game is a good game. It's really just that simple. Doesn't matter if it's GaaS or not.

Close thread.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

I mean do you have any evidence on any of this besides the fact that you enjoyed the game during a Playtest.

Why do you think The Finals, a game almost no one was talking about, reached #4 on Steamcharts over the weekend? Was it the massive marketing push it got?

You can look at how wrong "games media types" have been about multiplayer hits, and how wrong they've been about multiplayer flops.

See: Knockout City has higher review scores than Fortnite. Do you think for a second that Fortnite didn't mop the floor with Knockout City when it came to week 1 metrics? Things like average play session duration and amount of days played?

A huge issue we have, is single player types having the bullhorn when it comes to assessing multiplayer.

 

[StueyDuck]

Why do you think The Finals, a game almost no one was talking about, reached #4 on Steamcharts over the weekend? Was it the massive marketing push it got?

You can look at how wrong "games media types" have been about multiplayer hits, and how wrong they've been about multiplayer flops.

See: Knockout City has higher review scores than Fortnite. Do you think for a second that Fortnite didn't mop the floor with Knockout City when it came to week 1 metrics? Things like average play session duration and amount of days played?

A huge issue we have, is single player types having the bullhorn when it comes to assessing multiplayer.

Again... games being hyped before launch have no indication on its lifespan.

Can you point to tangible evidence like arena shooters always have legs (they really don't besides overwatch)

It's still entirely conjecture that you are making and there's just nothing that says the Finals is going to be the next big thing.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Again... games being hyped before launch have no indication on its lifespan.

I'm with you 100%. The Finals wasn't hyped though. It did crazy numbers because players told their friends to jump on and they did.

Can you point to tangible evidence like arena shooters always have legs (they really don't besides overwatch)

I'm with you 100% here too. I've long said arena shooters are dinosaurs in modern multiplayer.

It's still entirely conjecture that you are making and there's just nothing that says the Finals is going to be the next big thing.

I disagree completely. The Finals has strong fundamentals that are present in just about every big multiplayer game. Fundamentals that are necessary for long term success. Hint: Those fundamentals are not gunfeel, thematics, sound etc...

 

[ozz ex machina]

Embark created an arena shooter that encourages social play, offers a variety of playstyles to gravitate to, and gives everyone a chance at making "the big play". Three things that are exponentially more important than gunfeel, theme, and TTK.

You make some bold and ignorant statements here. Gunfeel and TTK are essential components which the finals nails. It's the most important thing that so many games get horribly wrong. I'm not saying what you listed as important aren't also important. But you look foolish saying they are "exponentially" more important than the core fucking mechanics of a game.

I've really enjoyed the finals so far. I'll be curious to see how much of a success it is.

 

[StueyDuck]

I'm with you 100%. The Finals wasn't hyped though. It did crazy numbers because players told their friends to jump on and they did.


I'm with you 100% here too. I've long said arena shooters are dinosaurs in modern multiplayer.


I disagree completely. The Finals has strong fundamentals that are present in just about every big multiplayer game. Fundamentals that are necessary for long term success. Hint: Those fundamentals are not gunfeel, thematics, sound etc...

Again you are just pointing to how you enjoyed a game. There is nothing to agree with.

There is just no way anyone can say with 100% assurance that the Finals is going to be a massive hit that will stand the test of time.

Maybe once we see their long term support plans but until then it's just a game like any other game.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

You make some bold and ignorant statements here. Gunfeel and TTK are essential components which the finals nails. It's the most important thing that so many games get horribly wrong. I'm not saying what you listed as important aren't also important. But you look foolish saying they are "exponentially" more important than the core fucking mechanics of a game.

Halo Infinite and HyperScape also had great "gunfeel". Did PUBG, Fortnite, Rust, DayZ etc? Gunfeel is mostly a solved issue. There's a minimum quality you have to reach for competency, but even the two college kids who made Splitgate nailed it and where is that game now?

If I hear someone wasting time talking about gunfeel in 2023, I immediately write their opinions off as not understanding multiplayer. It's not 1997 anymore when half the games felt like complete dog****. That's when gunfeel mattered.

Multiplayer has advanced so much in the last 25 years. It's time our criticism advances as well.

I've really enjoyed the finals so far. I'll be curious to see how much of a success it is.

 

[nowhat]

OP, have you ever had a poll go your way?

 

[Sleepwalker]

I don't mind GAAS but this doesnt look appealing to me, next.

 

[Robb]

I haven't played it so I don't know. But I'd guess it'll be dead within a year or two.

 

[Johnny Concrete]

A game like this probably has a hard time succeeding if it is not free to play.

But I agree it looks like a solid game!

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Again you are just pointing to how you enjoyed a game. There is nothing to agree with.

That successful multiplayer games share in strong fundamentals and identifying what those fundamentals are isn't rocket science? Are you sure we don't agree?

There is just no way anyone can say with 100% assurance that the Finals is going to be a massive hit that will stand the test of time.

There is just no way anyone can say with 100% assurance that Victor Wembanyama is going to be a good basketball player. The San Antonio Spurs scouting department was confident enough that he was to take him #1 overall.

It's OK to be confident.

Maybe once we see their long term support plans but until then it's just a game like any other game.

You might need to see that. I don't.

 

[StueyDuck]

That successful multiplayer games share in strong fundamentals and identifying what those fundamentals are isn't rocket science? Are you sure we don't agree?


There is just no way anyone can say with 100% assurance that Victor Wembanyama is going to be a good basketball player. The San Antonio Spurs scouting department was confident enough that he was to take him #1 overall.

It's OK to be confident.


You might need to see that. I don't.

It's ok to be bullish but if you are going to make definitive arguments then you gonna have to bring facts to the table and so far you are bringing none?

You have yet to provide any reasoning to your statement other than, you enjoyed a playtest.

And that doesn't prove anything, we'll have to wait and see If it's a big hit but as of right now it's just a game.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

OP, have you ever had a poll go your way?

If I ever have a poll go my way on NeoGAF, call 911 immediately. It will mean my multiplayer cognition has fallen off a cliff.

 

[nikos]

I've always been a fan of live service games. The stream of content gives me a reason to keep playing a game.

The Finals is one of the best shooters I've played in quite a while. I've played it more than anything else all week. I'm all in when it releases.

 

[stickkidsam]

GaaS is the magic dragon for the gaming industry. Sure ya get to play games for free, but it comes at a cost paid in a pile of nickels and dimes that would make Scrooge McDuck quack.

That said, if a game is good then it's going to have a much better chance at success. Luck is always a factor. A field of 4 leaf clovers won't take ya to the top though if your game sucks, and you can definitely find what works among the best games, GaaS or not.

 

[Luipadre]

Game is super popular. 260k peak on steam. Top whishlisted game after beta. Longevity only depends on post launch support now. They have a high chance to hit the bank with this one

 

[Guilty_AI]

It'll likely have a good release, but will it have legs? Thats the biggest X factor when talking about GaaS.

 

[T_T]

MP games can have everything going for them but if they don't have something for the players to chase or grind, they will be dropped. Contrary to forum-talk, the casual playerbase craves for battlepasses, cosmetics, ingame currencies and plain old unlocking stuff. #1 reason Titanfall 2, probably one of the top 5 best MP shooters of the past decade, lost so many players quickly was the non-existent progression.
Maybe this game will have just enough of these to keep players hooked. Otherwise it will be dropped after a couple of weeks as everyone returns to the usual games.

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

I assure you, you won't have to think too hard about it when it evaporates in about 2 weeks.

This space is oversaturated beyond belief, and the games all look the damn same at this point. The Finals has its share of gimmicks, but it's going to fall prey to the same gameplay loop doldrums.

 

[Kataploom]

I don't think this is accurate.

Chess doesn't have "post game support". Chess is fun because the base game has so much variability and depth. People play it because hour 5,000 is still fun so many.

Post launch support is needed on games that lack that depth. A multiplayer game that gets stale after hour 10 or 20 requires post launch support because the core design is so weak.

The Finals core is sound. It doesn't get stale quickly.

I'd agree with you if it wasn't for some games communities complaining about content even when base game is already great.
I need to try this one tho, I'm in need of some fresh online experience these days.

 

[Black_Stride]

For every one successful GaaS game there are 10 failures.

Citing outlier successes as the norm is disingenuous because there are more major failures than major successes.

This year alone weve had:

• The Cycle Frontier - Bet you didnt even know Yager made a GaaS game.
• Rift Sweepers.
• Super People 2.
• Lemnis Gate.
• CrossfireX - Im shocked this game failed in the west.
• Vampire TM Bloodhunt.
• Project Xandata.
• Knockout City.
• Rumbleverse.
• Spellbreak.
• WolfLord.
• Babylons Fall - Deserved!!!

All these games failed this year some of them deserved to die some of them were really cool concepts but without a community they simply couldnt survive.

So yeah its still luck of the draw whether your game will be a success or not cuz its practically impossible to gauge user interest and whether a game will have legs outside of the established franchises.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

GaaS games actually still need to be good games to succeed. There are plenty of good games in the GaaS space, they are the ones which make billions of dollars over their lifetimes.

Whatever "The Finals" is, if it's good, people will play it, and it will succeed. If it's trash, it will die a horrible death. Coincidentally, this is also what happens to any kind of game, not just GaaS games.

 

[DonF]

My guess is that no. Most games nowadays need a serious player base. Good thing is that this game needs what, 12 people per match? But also, servers/netcode are kinda crappy.
The game plays super sluggish on console. And the ttk is a turn off.

 

[dreamstation]

Needs servers in more than 3 locations before it will be a hit.

 

[STARSBarry]

The Finals core is sound. It doesn't get stale quickly.

People kept telling me this about Halo Infinite and that's why it won GAF GOTY.

I think people are just bad at identifying solid gameplay loops these days.