• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Battleborn adds microtransactions

is battleborn really dead or are people exaggerating? how bad is it?

On PC the community is pretty much dead, it's struggling to even break 1000 concurrent users. Console is rumored to be better off but we really don't have solid numbers from there. Overwatch completely annihilated Batteborn's PC base.

I haven't seen a game kill a game so hard since probably BLOPS II taking significant chunks of Halo 4's MP userbase.
 

Haunted

Member
Battleborn may need a bit more help than microtransactions. Marketing trying to make it look like an Overwatch alternative didn't help much either.

jJaQLFs.png
tumblr_mrp3uhBLjI1s6krrko1_250.gif


woooow
 

Coreda

Member
While I have no interest in the game (or Overwatch fwiw) it's a bit dismaying how much people practically want it to fail given its downward spiral.

Unlike some games which have had terrible practices and have had deservingly heaped criticism it seems the worst this game did was launch at the wrong time and without a strong enough IP to compete, unless I'm missing something.

Edit: I looked up Gearbox, I guess I can see why.
 
What was wrong with this game (prior to the micro-transactions)?

Much of GAF hates Gearbox.

Game is great, straight-up, probably my personal GOTY so far. It's like a FPS and Awesomenauts had a baby. So much better designed than the Borderlands series.

Queue times have definitely gotten a little longer on PC lately, though I can't say it's been particularly out of line even compared to games with bigger populations like Heroes of the Storm or Guild Wars 2. I might wait 3-5 minutes for a match instead of 2. (To be fair closer to launch it was waiting for like less than 1. Game has really fast matchmaking.) They released a big update last week (?) that sped up rematch speed, at least.
 

SAB CA

Sketchbook Picasso
Embarrassing lol.. Just go back to making Borderlands, because that's all you're good at and that's the only series I like from them.

For me, this is much closer to the personality and fun I had in BL1, which 2 lost a lot of. I'm quite glad it's a different flavor from Borderlands, and I honestly like a lot of these characters more, and am surprised with how much diversity they fit into 25 Playable characters. They didn't let their humor and "voice" restrict them as much as something like, Fable, where everyone eventually begins to run together.

There's room for both series to exist. Beyond superficial reasons, they don't play alike at all...

What was wrong with this game (prior to the micro-transactions)?

Nothing. People just followed the crowd and think that this is a rip / inferior version of Overwatch, which is pretty far from the truth.

It's less like a Team Fortress skin, and more like the 2nd best attempt to make a console-friendly MOBA fusion this side of SMITE and Awesomenauts (which I quite wish would release it's promised XB1 version).

yeah. stuff like this is why I refrained from ragging on it in the OP. my personal feelings towards Battleborn aside, this isn't a bad system compared to others.

Thanks, lol. People get so "triggered" by the concept of Micro-transactions, but I still stand by the idea that getting digital goodies in games is as viable as producing action figures, artbooks, sticks, or playing cards. Priced right, it might even be better, since they actually work within the product you're playing / enjoying.

Everytime the instant-negativity for them comes up, it feels like people are stuck in the days of expensive horse armor. How many years have to pass, before people judge these things by their actual quality (animation, effects, amount of changing for the cost, etc), rather than just reacting poorly because "OMG, money!!!"?
 

Bronetta

Ask me about the moon landing or the temperature at which jet fuel burns. You may be surprised at what you learn.
How low does this place Battleborn on the unlocking and microtransaction systems?

It's not a new low because there's nothing new about Battleborn.
 
reviewing the game right now ... and the feeling i got its was for the best that borderlands didnt get a pvp, the game is awful
 

Ferrio

Banned
The game seemed really confused on what type of game wanted to be, which really didn't make it easy for consumers to know what it actually is.

Also building a game based on shit tons of grinding and the MOBA formula was just asking for people to ignore it. Overwatch didn't kill it, just rubbed salt into the wound to show how off the mark they were judging the market demand for this type of game.
 
Overwatch completely annihilated Batteborn's PC base.

Battleborn was already in trouble before Overwatch came out. It's peak concurrent players on Steam is only 12k, less than half of Evolve's peak.

This game would have failed regardless of Overwatch existing. It's just not good enough at any one thing it does.
 
Battleborn was already in trouble before Overwatch came out. It's peak concurrent players on Steam is only 12k, less than half of Evolve's peak.

This game would have failed regardless of Overwatch existing. It's just not good enough at any one thing it does.

I feel like it's a competent MOBA. But it didn't do anything new in it's genre.

I wonder how Paragon will do?
 

Aselith

Member
What was wrong with this game (prior to the micro-transactions)?

The visual design seemed really messy because you'd get all these dudes fighting and they just kinda looked samey so it would be a mess of characters that looked the same. Like I found it really hard to pick out heroes when they were fighting right up against creeps.

Also, the abilities didn't really give any feedback on what they were doing. Nothing felt like it was really doing anything and it was really hard to tell what it was even supposed to do without reading the wall of text descriptions.

Game just didn't feel good to play.
 
I feel like it's a competent MOBA. But it didn't do anything new in it's genre.

I wonder how Paragon will do?

I can't imagine Paragon will fare much better. They both suffer similar problems. People who already play MOBAs won't really be attracted to these games because they're already invested, and it's nearly impossible to dedicate yourself to more than one MOBA. People who aren't interested in MOBAs won't get into these games because their mechanics don't offer anything to remedy the issues people have with that genre.

When it comes down to it, Paragon is practically a League clone with a different camera angle. I don't know what they are hoping to accomplish with it. It's not going to appeal to third-person shooter fans, and why would you jump to play Paragon if you already play League?
 

Ferrio

Banned
I can't imagine Paragon will fare much better. They both suffer similar problems. People who already play MOBAs won't really be attracted to these games because they're already invested, and it's nearly impossible to dedicate yourself to more than one MOBA. People who aren't interested in MOBAs won't get into these games because their mechanics don't offer anything to remedy the issues people have with that genre.

When it comes down to it, Paragon is practically a League clone with a different camera angle. I don't know what they are hoping to accomplish with it. It's not going to appeal to third-person shooter fans, and why would you jump to play Paragon if you already play League?

It's baffling these companies are making the same exact gambles that people did in the MMO space. I mean if it hits it big they're golden, but that's a longshot gamble. Maybe that's what they're betting on, hope that maybe it catches on big and if they don't just transaction the shit outta the game to break even.
 

Quonny

Member
I can't imagine Paragon will fare much better. They both suffer similar problems. People who already play MOBAs won't really be attracted to these games because they're already invested, and it's nearly impossible to dedicate yourself to more than one MOBA. People who aren't interested in MOBAs won't get into these games because their mechanics don't offer anything to remedy the issues people have with that genre.

When it comes down to it, Paragon is practically a League clone with a different camera angle. I don't know what they are hoping to accomplish with it. It's not going to appeal to third-person shooter fans, and why would you jump to play Paragon if you already play League?
I'm going to play it because it's free. At least going to try it.

That's a major, major barrier dropped. I'd try Battleborn if it were free.
 
Twitch viewers being used as a metric for a game's success might be the dumbest thing ive seen. i sure as fuck dont want twitch-people anywhere near the games i play.
 

SJRB

Gold Member
Battleborn may need a bit more help than microtransactions. Marketing trying to make it look like an Overwatch alternative didn't help much either.

jJaQLFs.png

PMdjhpC.png


*water sloshing around the bowl*

Damn, it's way worse than I expected.

I feel sorry for the devs in the trenches who worked years on this game, but holy shit did Gearbox make a catastrophic error in judgement on this one.
 
Twitch viewers being used as a metric for a game's success might be the dumbest thing ive seen. i sure as fuck dont want twitch-people anywhere near the games i play.
But it's a barometer on how the game is doing in the gaming public since Twitch isn't a niche steaming service anymore and no other genre needs it more than multiplayer focused games.
 
I'm not a whale but in online games with microtransactions I generally require the game to be at least somewhat popular before I even consider buying into them. What's the point of looking cool if only you can see it? At that point just play a singleplayer RPG and download some armor mods.
 

pantsmith

Member
If a game adds microtransactions but no one plays it, doesn't it cost more to implement them than they're bound to make?
 

Woo-Fu

Banned
So this game will be f2p in the next 3-6 months then.

The interesting thing about this game is that of all the problems it has, business model isn't one of them.

Making a game free to play isn't going to win over people who have already decided they've got no reason to play it over other games. The game is a genre mix-up that isn't better at any of the elements it pulls from various genres. There is quite simply put, always a better game to be playing.
 

Quonny

Member
Twitch viewers being used as a metric for a game's success might be the dumbest thing ive seen. i sure as fuck dont want twitch-people anywhere near the games i play.

I agree with your first sentence. However, your second point is really bizarre. Millions of people use Twitch from all different walks of life. You don't want the games you play to be played by millions of people?
 

SAB CA

Sketchbook Picasso
The visual design seemed really messy because you'd get all these dudes fighting and they just kinda looked samey so it would be a mess of characters that looked the same. Like I found it really hard to pick out heroes when they were fighting right up against creeps.

I mean... no? The only 2 characters that are even that similar are Oscar Mike and Wikey Foxtrot. Otherwise, silhouettes, animations, and effects are very different between almost every character.

And I play constantly on Splitscreen with my brother online, so my screen is usually even SMALLER than usual, and I still never had issues picking characters out. I had more issues picking out characters in Gears of War, since there's little to no silhouette or action difference between Locust and Humans.

The biggest misstep I think they have is that there's no colored outline around characters, and no "team colors", since people are free to pic their own costumes and such. There are team outlines around AOE effects and such, but when you first start the game, you'll die to the ability before you know who hit you with it.

This all disappears, and becomes a non-issues as you learn the game's own language. I haven't had issues in weeks.

Also, the abilities didn't really give any feedback on what they were doing. Nothing felt like it was really doing anything and it was really hard to tell what it was even supposed to do without reading the wall of text descriptions.

Game just didn't feel good to play.

This also untrue. There is a little "tick" sound that happens every time an ability/shot of yours hits, and of course, you see damage numbers ticking off enemies, and feel controller vibration. Not to mention enemies moan and groan when attacked. Some of them are oddly non-sequitur (such as Mellka's poison effect sounds like you're getting shocked when you take the effect), and it's not the same as many other games (screen flashes or blurring effects are different), but again, it just has it's own language for how it handles things.

Not all games feel good to everyone, but I found it pretty easily to acclimate to personally. It just actually required adjustment, as opposed to other games which just feel like reskins of another series sound effects, screen effects, and movement / attack timings. If anything, that's what drew me to it; I love the fact that Melee felt like honest to goodness FP melee, rather than a tacked-on bonus to shooting. Gun assassins and sword assassins feel unique! And actually different from other gun and melee classes. Shields are actual HP, and some characters don't even have them, or have physical ones. Characters even have dash attacks, varied melee, and "quick melee" actually serves a purpose (pushback), even on gunners.

It's got gameplay depth that a game with 25 play styles to balance shouldn't have pulled off so well on first blush. But you'll never appreciate that stuff, if you're turned off early on, which, as a person who enjoys the game, I find that quite unfortunate. Especially being able to play it all solidly online in splitscreen, pushes this game so far past others in personal fun-factor. I haven't had comparable fun + online since Awesomenauts original release, or Monday Night Combat on 360.
 
Twitch viewers being used as a metric for a game's success might be the dumbest thing ive seen. i sure as fuck dont want twitch-people anywhere near the games i play.

I mean it's a pretty good metric of the general interest in a game even if the twitch format isn't your style.
 

TheYanger

Member
Twitch viewers being used as a metric for a game's success might be the dumbest thing ive seen. i sure as fuck dont want twitch-people anywhere near the games i play.

It's fine if you want ot put your head in the sand as to the modern gaming landscape, but to call it 'dumb' or to pretend that 'twitch people' is a type of person is reductive and insane. Twitch is an INCREDIBLY good barometer for interest in newly released games, especially multiplayer ones. Saying you don't want twitch people near games you play is basically saying "I don't want anyone to care at all about games I play" which is basically saying you want them to fail.
 

Garlador

Member
Damn, it's way worse than I expected.

I feel sorry for the devs in the trenches who worked years on this game, but holy shit did Gearbox make a catastrophic error in judgement on this one.

All told, I'm told it's not a bad game. Is the error in judgement the game itself, or the marketing and advertising?

I'm told it's still one of Gearbox's best games in a while (not that the competition is that impressive). I wonder what they could have done differently.
 

Bedlam

Member
I just think that the idea that people want to play a MOBA in 1st or 3rd-person perspective is a huge misunderstanding. The genre is stressful and complex as is already, I certainly wouldn't want to deal with the whole shooter aspect on top of that. It just doesn't sound like a good time.

The second problem is Gearbox's reputation at this point. Sure, this hardly affects the mainstream market but a game like this, that doesn't find its way into mainstream right away (due to lack of marketing, big competition etc.) could sure need a boost from the core audience. Unfortunately this audience is aware of Gearbox's reputation. The good people at Gearbox can thank lyin Randy for that.
 
Down to 1100 concurrent players peak yesterday

thursday is usually the lowest day so I guess it'll drop below 1000 peak concurrent tomorrow

another 30 percent drop from last week , as predicted, just like every week before it

Next thursday 700, the week after that 500, then 300 then 200 and so on:p till noone is left
 
Top Bottom