Like the barren graveyards that were Overwatch and Rocket League this year.
Matches in last game were lobby-based. It would try to keep you in a full lobby, pull new players in when gaps filled, sit for 60+ seconds in-between rounds, and have long loads in-between. This was okay (not great) when there were tons & tons of players, but late at night (or even during the day on low-population playlists) how long you had to wait to play a match could be really random. We improved this a lot in the months after launch (especially for team balance), but damage done and there's only so much you can improve without gutting the system.
For this sequel, we did that; matchmaking is flexible & smart now, and games start much more quickly and reliably for everyone. No more sitting in a 3v5 lobby waiting for someone to come along, or praying that matchmaking chooses your lobby to bless with an extra player, etc.
I'm not knocking server browsers. But for building & holding communities I think the game's Networks cover a lot of that and much more. Private Match, too; which pairs well with Networks.
(And all servers are always dedicated servers, etc.)
The problem here is that
1. Overwatch is a Blizzard game and they have a huge fanbase in general as well as a huge casual fanbase as well who will play anything Blizzard releases or only Blizzard games. They know anything Blizzard releases will generally be of a high quality and shined to a sheen. They also had a beta which everyone could play and see what folks thought of the game.
2. Rocket League is on Steam and it also shares the playerbases of Xbox One and PS4. It's going to naturally have a bigger playerbase because it's not totally reliant on PC players.
3. You're on Origin, a platform that a lot of PC players won't touch due to it not being Steam. I'm not saying it's right to think this (I actually don't mind Origin) but the only FPS games I can think of that retain big communities on Origin are the Battlefield games (and even then Hardline is a very small community in comparison to 4).
4. You're going against Battlefield One, on the same service, within a few weeks of each other. Battlefield One gives PC players what they want with options as well as a server browser. You're facing stiff competition from the outset.
5. The PC is full of multiplayer FPS and players have a huge selection to choose from. Why would I choose this with things missing that I want in a shooter when I can choose any one of the other ones ? Sure look at CS:GO, a game that offers both matchmaking and server browsers, giving the players plenty of choice in how they want to play.
6. Your PC history includes the godawful IW.NET on Modern Warfare 2. I know this was more during a turbulent time for a lot of you folks and I do sympathise so you couldn't really work on improvements but after playing COD4 on PC which I still do to this day, this matchmaking system was pisspoor.
You are all obviously very talented folks and I have no doubt you have made some major improvements to the matchmaking system and how it works but you keep making the same mistake a lot of developers do. You keep ignoring the way a lot of PC players want to play their games. PC players WANT to be able to host their own servers, they want to foster their own communities in their own way. You know how rare it is to even get server files off a company these days on PC ? I have no ill will towards the game or the company, hell I hope I am absolutely wrong and it has thousands and thousands of players when I end up playing it (if I even buy it only for the single player I'm going to look at multi!) and that you can personally come back to this thread and go "Al, you were talking shite!" but it does leave me genuinely concerned for the longevity of the game. For example I have friends who are looking greatly forward to Battlefield One but when I ask them about Titanfall 2 they're all like "No server browser and only on Origin, you mad ?" (despite the fact they're using bloody Origin for Battlefield One!). All anecdotal of course.
