3 ms·

> only kids have the kind of free time to grind these out week after week Adult will still have time to watch netflix, youtube or tiktok, read books, engagemen

> only kids have the kind of free time to grind these out week after week Adult will still have time to watch netflix, youtube or tiktok, read books, engagement bait on twitter etc. What these games are competing against is not "free time" but any block of 15min that would go to another activity. Given the number of people binge watching Netflix, it's a decent marketing segment.

0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
Most games require a dedicated hardware device or beefier PC hardware. It is also easier to veg out on the alternatives than games which require more active engagement on the part of the player. All can greatly filter your audience vs doom scrolling.
- makeitdouble 2y ago
  In the article's case, requiring a PS5 or a gaming PC is sure a deterrent. That's where other live services will try hard enough to be at least on the Switch, or even better, work on mobile.
qwertycrackers 2y ago
Sure but the comparable idea with Netflix is like one show. You watch that show and then it's done. It took you maybe 8 hours. This kind of game expects a player to log in week after week, dedicating hundreds and hundreds of hours over the course of years. But players who want to do that are already invested in other games. They're not going to split out time to play this new one unless it's amazing. This thing was $40 and not well regarded. No one is really surprised at this result.
- makeitdouble 2y ago
  Yes, it really comes down to motivating users to play your game, either through network effect or by just being that good. I was just pointing that the amount of time isn't the real issue, it's the competition for that time. Of course, the tighter that time is the tougher the competition will be, and the better a singular live service game needs to be.
  - gigaflop 2y ago
    Yep. I love gaming, and game nights with a squad, but I can't ass myself to follow every single option. Also, back when I played Valorant, a regular match could be anywhere from 20 to 40 minutes long. Add up queue times, waiting for people to group up (because there's usually one more person who's almost online, etc), and waiting for the potato-pc users to load in, it could easily turn into 3 hours for 2 to 3 matches. These days, I'd rather watch a movie, and be in a different chair than the one I'd spent my working day in.
rightbyte 2y ago
You can't play competetive matchmaking with small kids around though. I had to drop Dota since too many games got ruined by the kids needing care and I was about to get dropped into the punnishment games bracket. Singleplayer games or Netflix you can just pause.
- johndunne 2y ago
  Yup, I pretty much stopped online gaming altogether once my son was born for this exact reason. And there's plenty of high-quality offline games out there if you're inclined to spend time playing and trying games. Game companies are in for a rough decade if they continue this $100million+ dollar outlay before game launch. MVP is a sound model.

0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago

Most games require a dedicated hardware device or beefier PC hardware. It is also easier to veg out on the alternatives than games which require more active engagement on the part of the player. All can greatly filter your audience vs doom scrolling.

makeitdouble 2y ago
In the article's case, requiring a PS5 or a gaming PC is sure a deterrent. That's where other live services will try hard enough to be at least on the Switch, or even better, work on mobile.

qwertycrackers 2y ago

Sure but the comparable idea with Netflix is like one show. You watch that show and then it's done. It took you maybe 8 hours. This kind of game expects a player to log in week after week, dedicating hundreds and hundreds of hours over the course of years. But players who want to do that are already invested in other games. They're not going to split out time to play this new one unless it's amazing. This thing was $40 and not well regarded. No one is really surprised at this result.

makeitdouble 2y ago
Yes, it really comes down to motivating users to play your game, either through network effect or by just being that good. I was just pointing that the amount of time isn't the real issue, it's the competition for that time. Of course, the tighter that time is the tougher the competition will be, and the better a singular live service game needs to be.
- gigaflop 2y ago
  Yep. I love gaming, and game nights with a squad, but I can't ass myself to follow every single option. Also, back when I played Valorant, a regular match could be anywhere from 20 to 40 minutes long. Add up queue times, waiting for people to group up (because there's usually one more person who's almost online, etc), and waiting for the potato-pc users to load in, it could easily turn into 3 hours for 2 to 3 matches. These days, I'd rather watch a movie, and be in a different chair than the one I'd spent my working day in.

rightbyte 2y ago

You can't play competetive matchmaking with small kids around though. I had to drop Dota since too many games got ruined by the kids needing care and I was about to get dropped into the punnishment games bracket. Singleplayer games or Netflix you can just pause.

johndunne 2y ago
Yup, I pretty much stopped online gaming altogether once my son was born for this exact reason. And there's plenty of high-quality offline games out there if you're inclined to spend time playing and trying games. Game companies are in for a rough decade if they continue this $100million+ dollar outlay before game launch. MVP is a sound model.