This is addressed by point #4. Tattoos wouldn't exist if others couldn't see them.
A. You don't know that.
B. A metaphor isn't a point.
NeoGAF doesn't consider match 3 phone games "real games". That's an entirely different market than the one I'm discussing (PC+Console gamers)
A. NeoGAF isn't a hivemind, and even if it was what it would thinks or not think isn't a set fact.
B. The same can be applied to PC/console games, otherwise we wouldn't be having a dozen Battle Royales, looter shooters, hero shooters and what not coming out all the time.
This is a fly by comment that is obviously incorrect. The Battle Royale success rate over the last 5 years is not comparable to the Arena Shooter success rate in the same time period.
It's not just Arena Shooters either. Racing games used to be much more popular. Platformers too. Point and Click Adventure games etc...
Some genres die out while others thrive.
What you're missing here is that the reason for one genre's success and the other failure isn't innovation. Rogue games are old as fuck and now they're suddenly very popular. Also, you're completely ignoring CSGO, COD and Valorant exist, though not technically arena shooters, are still games about running around a small map with short rounds, which according to you is too outdated of a concept to be successful.
Did PUBG have a lot of marketing and money when it first launched on PC?
No, but it did have an innovative approach to marketing. The reason for their success at the time was the way they advertised the game. They gave free keys to tons of streamers, which at the time wasn't something very common to do.
Did it have a frequent stream of content during its first fee blistering months on the market when it grew and grew in popularity?
It had the advantage of being the first widely popular game of its kind, much like CS, many people already developed an habit of playing it.
And it still lost space to other BRs from developers with much deeper pockets.
The developer in this video doesn't explain why entire genres have fallen out of popularity and why multiplayer has shot past single player as gamings torchbearer.
The points raised in the OP do a better job at that.
Because thats just how trends work and not really an important point to discuss. Why were slasher horror movies popular in the 80s and now super hero movies are the popular ones? Its definitely not because one is better than the other.
This is such a crazy statement.
Its a crazy world after all.
First, it's so easy to disprove that I'm certain you could do it in a few seconds if we disabled your bias chip. Roller Champions and Knockout City delivered a steady stream of new content right out of the gate. Both games essentially died in their first month. PUBG and Fortnite had no content during their first month. They skyrocketed in popularity because of superior game design that appeals to human nature more. When you formulate an opinion or statement, you have to view it critically before it gets sent to press.
Those games had problems with their business models, like paywalls, delays or overestimation on how much people would be immediatly interested in them. In fact, there was plenty of interest in Roller Champions from the looks of it, but because Ubisoft is too greedy/incompetent and doesn't want to invest in a game that didn't became the next Fortnite as soon as it released, they dropped it.
Secondly, try not to become this meme
Sounds like you need to take your own advice. Have you ever read your own comments on single player games and arena shooters? Your views of the gaming scene are far too deterministic.
Your line of thinking shouldn't be "I don't like (multiplayer GAAS) therefore I'll lob any crazy attack at them without considering the validity." You're a good person
Guilty_AI
, multiplayer deserves better criticism though.
I don't 'hate' neither Multiplayer nor GAAS. I play Elden Ring coop with friends and will soon try out Vermintide 2 with them, I like Deep Rock Galactic and Wreckfest, i think Monster Hunter is a great series, i played Genshin and ETS2 for a good while...
But the truth remains that these are types of games that are surrounded by greed and poor practices, and it was through those that the current big-profile games got where they are today.
You have this obssession with the notion that certain multiplayer games are somehow the next step of evolution, but you clearly haven't been involved in the scene long enough to know how the gaming market works. Even in a previous thread you were making your points as if persistent online, social media games and MMORPGs weren't something that spawned 30 years back, with many from the time being even more complex than popular modern games.
It would be great if innovation and creativity determined how successful a game becomes, but the truth is that its just one small factor among many others, some far more important, like business models and current trends.