The live-service trend might be dying, but Wardogs is proving that there is still a way to use this formula and not worry about hitting record-breaking player numbers. Wardogs has been generating a lot of buzz recently, especially with its closed beta numbers that drew in around 200K players. I know it sounds counterproductive to bring up beta numbers when I just mentioned that live-service titles don't need to draw in tons of gamers, but what sets Wardogs apart is that the devs behind the FPS tactical shooter have prepared themselves for the day that its player count drops.
Obsessing over player counts is something that has been a big topic of discussion when it comes to live-service games. If a new game doesn't hit massive numbers, it's immediately written off as a failure. I fully understand that live-service fatigue is warranted in a lot of cases, but the trend of labeling a game under this umbrella as a flop before it ever has the chance to grow an audience over time is tiring and unfair. Some games take time to gain traction, and Wardogs developer Bulkhead realizes that if a game is going to be built on a live-service model, then it needs to work when it no longer has hype to fuel it.
In response to streamer Timthetatman questioning whether Wardogs would make for a good game to watch via streaming or not, Bulkhead CEO Joe Brammer took to Twitter to offer an official response. Brammer acknowledged that the game probably won't be a longtime streaming success, but that's okay, because Bulkhead has prepared for the FPS to thrive on a player count as low as 5,000. In a world that has become so focused on things like ARC Raiders and Marathon's player count to prove how worthy each game is of attention, Bulkhead's 5,000 concurrent player goal is a huge step away from the status quo.
پێش ئەوەی کات تەواو بێت سیلۆیەتەکان بناسە.
Even though Timthetatman made sure that not having a pull on streaming doesn't mean Wardogs is a bad game, it's maddening that this is something that even needs to be mentioned in a conversation about whether a live-service game will be successful or not. Yes, streaming has been important for a lot of the best live-service games, but that doesn't mean it has to be a lifeline for every single title in this corner of gaming.
Right now, it's unclear exactly how long Bulkhead will keep Wardogs in Early Access. The developer has mentioned in the past that it could last between one or two years, but it's hard to predict these things. Depending on the number of potential bugs and the feedback from players, it's possible that the Early Access period could be shorter or longer than anticipated.
Both audiences and industry higher-ups will mark a game as "dead" within days, or even hours, of its launch if it's pulling modest numbers, and it's causing a real problem in the industry. Marathon is one of the most prominent examples of this. Past reports claim that Sony is unhappy with Marathon's numbers, even though the game still attracts a solid number of players. It's not bringing in Fortnite numbers by any means, but the extraction shooter has still been a modest success.
Not many games simply get to be modest successes anymore. The past few years have felt like a game has to either be a massive hit or be a controversial mess like Sony's Concord failure. There is plenty of room to be happy and content somewhere in the middle, and that's what makes Joe Brammer's comments about Wardogs so refreshing. Wardogs isn't trying to be the biggest new viral hit; it's focusing on offering players a satisfying game that keeps them coming back because the gameplay makes it worth it.
سەرچاوەی فەرمی بە زمانی ئینگلیزی: https://gamerant.com/steam-fps-like-battlefield-wardogs-live-service-game-player-counts/
