> all three failed at attracting and maintaining new players

This means that they not necessarily were all that great.

madewithdrama 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They were great examples of what an arena shooter should be. Smooth movement, balanced weapons, well designed maps. The people who had experience with arena shooters liked them. Most new players did not want to get rekt for months on end while they learned the basics, however.

▲

TulliusCicero 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> Most new players did not want to get rekt for months on end while they learned the basics, however.

If that's the new player experience, you done fucked up. Making sure new players actually have fun is a critical part of the game's design. You can't just rely on "...and then new players will have to spend 50-60 hours getting demolished before they start having a good time."

Easing that transition could mean different things -- a campaign, skirmish mode vs bots, full-on PvE co-op mode, automatching that actually works, whatever -- but you do need something effective.

▲

crummy an hour ago | parent [-]

Splitgate matched new players with bots for the first few hours. It meant I had fun (then eventually I levelled up enough, matched with players, got stomped, and never picked it up again…)

	▲	wmil an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Marvel Rivals quietly matched your team up with bots if you lost twice in a row. I think that was a good system.

▲

moomin 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Only in the rather reductive sense of “the vast majority of gamers are into other genres now”.

▲

acron0 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It can also mean the market has shifted which is more the case imo.