GribbleGrunger said:
Is that what I just said? You know, I'm starting to get to the point where I realise rational discussion on forums is impossible because the responses become so extreme and don't relate to the point made. YES (Because I have eyes and can read), I can see that Bubg is a big success. Now we've got that nonsense out of the way we can move onto what I 'actually' said: I said a long time ago that the trouble with the success of pubg (notice I used success even back then) is that other companies would jump on the bandwagon and start forcing battle royal modes into their games. This is now happening. The problem these devs will eventually face, and are already facing to a certain extent, is that 'time' is the deciding factor. Everyone will be trying to take a slice of the battle royal pie but only a handful of games will benefit from it because people only have a certain amount of time in a day to dedicate to these games. There's room for only so many of these games and those companies that insist on adding battle royal modes to their games will annoy their fans and actually reduce their sales. For a long time these companies will think engagement is more financially rewarding than actual sales of the software so even if they do see a reduction in sales they'll take heart from those statistics. What they're not thinking about is the long term affects. As people get more and more options, their engagement numbers will go down and they'll be left with a franchise that sells less and have no meaningful engagement. They'll kill their own franchises. |
It happens all the time, people included multiplayer in their games because it made some games succesfull, then they copied capture the flag and plant the bomb modes. Moba's and Minecraft were some of the recent crazes that people were copying like crazy and how does it hurt now exactly.
Currently Online 
