JTW wrote on Nov 19, 2023, 20:22:
Peak doesn't matter if it's not sustained. Plenty of games skyrocket on week one, then people find out they suck and walk away. 5k for six months is better than 25k for two weeks.

Likewise, peak doesn't matter if nobody's spending.

The publishers have much better data than we do. They can look at the difference in development cost, the cost of keeping the 'service' running, profits from sales vs profits from microtransactions, they can take into account the audience appeal of the different licenses, and they can look at how marketing budgets translated into sales (and sales translates into players.) And that's just the start.

Sure. All of that goes without saying but that wasn't the point. The (well, *my*) point was to look at some numbers to gauge the interest and the initial sales burst regarding a Marvel single player vs. a live service game. Like most games, both, Avengers and GotG, had their player peak at/around launch.
Out of the gate, Avengers, in spite of a weaker critical reception, attracted almost 3x more players to it. That is the simple fact I was trying to point out.

The person I quoted said something about a "recipe for failure" with regard to a live service game. If we go by the data available to us then a single player game seems like a much more likely failure at this point. GotG flopped hard. And it is the most ungrateful type of flop for a publisher because you can't even really tell why it flopped. GotG received almost unanimous praise. And yet it flopped.

With a live service game, you have a much better chance to turn things around. Warner's denial aside, I would not be surprised if they are much more tempted to give a live service game like Avengers (but done "right") another try than failing once more with a one and done single player game that gets shunned by gamers in spite of its undisputed excellence.

As a huge fan of the Arkham series and as someone who enjoyed GotG immensely, I hope I'm wrong and I hope we get more Arkham-like games from Warner but I'm afraid that the job listing was simply one of those caught with pants below ankles moments...

I wouldn't be surprised that either 1) Warner Bros was actually going to make this a live service and the backlash against this leak made them change their minds, or 2) they deliberately leaked this themselves to get a feel as to how this concept would go over with the gamer crowd. Would there be happiness, anger, or indifference?

Either way, I don't know much about game-making or economics, but I know a live service lives or dies on how many people are playing. Because whales make up 1% of a live service game's audience, and a live service game needs whales to survive, a lack of any interest at all would be what killed the idea of a live service game if the second were the case. The base population would need to be high enough for that 1% to be enough to make a live service game be profitable.

JTW wrote on Nov 19, 2023, 20:22:
Peak doesn't matter if it's not sustained. Plenty of games skyrocket on week one, then people find out they suck and walk away. 5k for six months is better than 25k for two weeks.

Likewise, peak doesn't matter if nobody's spending.

The publishers have much better data than we do. They can look at the difference in development cost, the cost of keeping the 'service' running, profits from sales vs profits from microtransactions, they can take into account the audience appeal of the different licenses, and they can look at how marketing budgets translated into sales (and sales translates into players.) And that's just the start.

QFE

Peak doesn't matter if it's not sustained. Plenty of games skyrocket on week one, then people find out they suck and walk away. 5k for six months is better than 25k for two weeks.

Likewise, peak doesn't matter if nobody's spending.

The publishers have much better data than we do. They can look at the difference in development cost, the cost of keeping the 'service' running, profits from sales vs profits from microtransactions, they can take into account the audience appeal of the different licenses, and they can look at how marketing budgets translated into sales (and sales translates into players.) And that's just the start.

jdreyer wrote on Nov 19, 2023, 14:29:
A single player WW game a la the Batman series sounds like it could be fun. A WW GaaS just sounds like a recipe for failure.

From our point of view, yes, but what do the Steam numbers say?

- Marvel's Avengers: 31,165 player peak (66.12% positive reviews)
- Marvel's Guardians of the Galaxy: 10,989 player peak (92.58% positive reviews)

^ So, in spite of a much warmer reception (GotG is awesome!), the single player game only achieved just over 30% of the all-time player peak of the live service game.

As for the Batman games:

- Arkham Asylum GOTY: 6,739 peak
- Arkham City GOTY: 6,871 peak (7,162 for the legacy version)
- Arkham Origins: 25,017 peak
- Arkham Knight: 27,406 peak

^ Respectable numbers with regard to the last two entries but still none of them reached Avengers.

Whether we like it or not (I sure as fuck don't), Warner Bros is way more likely to give us more Avengers instead of GotG or Arkham.

What's this about a reskinned Avengers game?

Cash Store, Cash Store, wherefore art thou , gimme the, gimme the Caaaashhh! 💰

Corporations lie about everything, film at 11.

A single player WW game a la the Batman series sounds like it could be fun. A WW GaaS just sounds like a recipe for failure.