It's a shame too because there's an interesting conversation to be had about why Lawbreakers seems to be struggling. It's a well received, well liked game so it's not a Battleborn type situation where the game was garbage and it was easy to see why it flopped. I enjoyed what I played of the Lawbreakers beta and I can't immediately point out anything they did that was 'wrong'. The character art is admittedly a bit plain but I don't know how much that should really matter in the grand scheme of things. I feel like the design is functional and doing it's job as long as characters are instantly distinguishable from each other.
Actually it's exactly the same, both are fantastic games that people pre-emptively hated because of who made them (Cliffy B/Randy Pitchford) rather than judging the games on whether they were good or not, when they're both obviously awesome.
Battleborn was also a great game that went through the same situation so words can't explain how vindicating this is for me. For months I defended Battleborn explaining why it was an awesome game that people were unwilling to give the time of day and now LB comes out and it's another awesome game that people are unwilling to give the time of day, but this time, a larger number of people (still small in the grand scheme of things) were willing to give this game a try, resulting in the reputation you see today. Which is that it's a great game according to anyone that's played it, but most people just don't want to play it which has nothing at all to do with merit.
TLDR: Battleborn was treated like shit and anytime I explained in great detail why it was a good game people said good games don't get poor receptions unless they're bad games...looks like this is another good game with a poor reception that had nothing to do with merit.