• 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.

PUBG 2 confirmed. What does a sequel to PUBG look like?

Gears 5, Lawbreakers, Hyper Scape...all crashed and burned. They were all multiplayer games that emphasized the hardcore "gunplay" types.
You're conveniently leaving out that other gunplay-focused titles released around the same time did extremely well, most notably Overwatch, Apex Legends and Warzone.

Animal Crossing New Horizons, Among Us, Fortnite, Fall Guys all succeeded because they didn't emphasize gunplay mechanics.
Blaming the success of Animal Crossing on the fact that it doesn't "emphasize gunplay" has to be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on this site.
 

Men_in_Boxes

Snake Oil Salesman
You're conveniently leaving out that other gunplay-focused titles released around the same time did extremely well, most notably Overwatch, Apex Legends and Warzone.


Blaming the success of Animal Crossing on the fact that it doesn't "emphasize gunplay" has to be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on this site.

Overwatchs popularity plummeted once Fortnite hit. It never recovered.

The fact that Fall Guys and Among Us (low budget games) met or exceeded the popularity of Apex and Warzone should tell us something.

What happens when the lessons learned from Among Us or Fall Guys are applied to a game with the budget of Warzone or Apex?

The growth market for multiplayer lies in appealing to lower mechanically skilled players.

Gaming media fawned over Valorant pre release, and a week or two post release. It faded because "mousey mouse click click" games don't bring people together. Multiplayer thrives when a skill diverse group of gamers can contribute together.
 
Last edited:

Shmunter

Member
I enjoyed the slow burn of what I tried on PS5. Limited exposure, but happy to look deeper with a new iteration.
 
Besides the shitty engine, why would I think otherwise?

I think you nailed it in one? It was clear it needs a ground up revamp and their monetisation compared to fortnite is very poor. So makes sense that if they are doing a proper overhaul to expect a new game with a buy in. Who knows maybe it will be a free addon.
 
Overwatchs popularity plummeted once Fortnite hit. It never recovered.
OW has been on a steady decline since about a year after launch., but the game could hardly be described as "dead" even now. I don't think Fortnite had all that much to do with it, the game simply got stale and Blizzard did very little to change that.

The fact that Fall Guys and Among Us (low budget games) met or exceeded the popularity of Apex and Warzone should tell us something.
What numbers are you basing this on? I'm not sure about other platforms, but Fall Guys has always had significantly fewer concurrent players on Steam than CSGO, which is just about the most gunplay focused FPS out there. Warzone also recently hit the 75 million player mark, and I have a hard time believing that Fall Guys has anywhere near that many players.

Among Us is a different story, since it's not only free, but able to run on almost anything from ancient budget laptops to five year-old entry level phones, i.e. devices that games like Warzone either aren't available or won't run on. If anything is to blame for that game's success it's that, not the fact that you don't need to aim and shoot at people.

Gaming media fawned over Valorant pre release, and a week or two post release. It faded because "mousey mouse click click" games don't bring people together. Multiplayer thrives when a skill diverse group of gamers can contribute together.
I don't see how you can Valorant a failure, unless your definition of the word is basically "any game that isn't number one". As for ""mousey mouse click click" games... isn't Fortnite one too?
 
Last edited:

ThatGamingDude

I am a virgin
Animal Crossing New Horizons, Among Us, Fortnite, Fall Guys all succeeded because they didn't emphasize gunplay mechanics.
>.> I would say 3 of those titles don't even fit into the conversation because they don't even involve guns
Astounding that games that are not action or FPS/TPS games would not emphasize gunplay mechanics
The fact that Fall Guys and Among Us (low budget games) met or exceeded the popularity of Apex and Warzone should tell us something.
More accessible easier games have about the same amount of market space as people who enjoy realistic shooters?

I would just say remove Among Us and Fall Guys from your thoughts in this conversation; it's incredibly out of place
"Pokemon sold millions of copies too, it didn't focus on gunplay mechanics!" is a really weird point to stand on man

"The alcohol store could learn something from the coffee shop! They don't concentrate on spirits!"
Like no shit it defeats the purpose, it's a fucking liquor store not a coffee shop
 

Men_in_Boxes

Snake Oil Salesman
>.> I would say 3 of those titles don't even fit into the conversation because they don't even involve guns
Astounding that games that are not action or FPS/TPS games would not emphasize gunplay mechanics

More accessible easier games have about the same amount of market space as people who enjoy realistic shooters?

I would just say remove Among Us and Fall Guys from your thoughts in this conversation; it's incredibly out of place
"Pokemon sold millions of copies too, it didn't focus on gunplay mechanics!" is a really weird point to stand on man

"The alcohol store could learn something from the coffee shop! They don't concentrate on spirits!"
Like no shit it defeats the purpose, it's a fucking liquor store not a coffee shop

I would argue we're entering a new epoch of multiplayer in general.

This isn't really about gun games vs non gun games. It's about high mechanical skill games vs low mechanical skill games.

The later has much higher market potential.
 

Ceadeus

Member
Dynamic weather
Ground deformation
Destructible environments
Real time seasons

There could have special events like natural disasters like tornado, flood, fire forest, earthquake etc..

My ideas are good :)
 

nikos

Member
I don't believe this is going to be another BR, just somehow related to the PUBG universe. From what I understand, it's a third person, single player, survival horror game developed by the studio Striking Distance, founded by Glen Schofield, who had previously co-created the Dead Space series.
 

NickFire

Member
Well this is interesting. I never expected part 2 for either this game or Fortnite. I always assumed they would just update the existing games periodically. I wonder why they aren't doing that. I would guess because they wanted so much that only PC / new gen can do, but it says for mobile too. I'm at a loss here.
 
Well this is interesting. I never expected part 2 for either this game or Fortnite. I always assumed they would just update the existing games periodically. I wonder why they aren't doing that.
PUBG is $30 on Steam. Think about it. They can't get away with asking players to pay for updates. A sequel, though? Different story.
 
The era of high mechanical skill games (reflexes, accuracy, APM) is giving way to low mechanical skill games that place more emphasis on coordination, strategy, creativity. Thumbs give way to the mind.
Why, exactly? Because Fall Guys and Among Us are popular? As has been pointed out, the former is actually less popular than many shooters, including some really old ones, and the latter is an absolute outlier in terms of price, availability and audience. It's the FarmVille of 2020.
 

Men_in_Boxes

Snake Oil Salesman
Why, exactly? Because Fall Guys and Among Us are popular? As has been pointed out, the former is actually less popular than many shooters, including some really old ones, and the latter is an absolute outlier in terms of price, availability and audience. It's the FarmVille of 2020.

Because multiplayer games that require low mechanical skill, and reward communication + creativity have vastly bigger market potential than multiplayer games that emphasize high mechanical skill and do not reward communication + creativity.

Fall Guys is a bad game. It's mini games provide very little depth. It exploded because the vast market looked at it and said "Oh my gosh, we can all play that. Let's buy it."

The 3 top selling Nintendo Switch games of all time give consumers the same thoughts that Fall Guys did. "That doesn't look that hard. I can do that."

This is not an anomaly.
 
Because multiplayer games that require low mechanical skill, and reward communication + creativity have vastly bigger market potential than multiplayer games that emphasize high mechanical skill and do not reward communication + creativity.

Fall Guys is a bad game. It's mini games provide very little depth. It exploded because the vast market looked at it and said "Oh my gosh, we can all play that. Let's buy it."

The 3 top selling Nintendo Switch games of all time give consumers the same thoughts that Fall Guys did. "That doesn't look that hard. I can do that."

This is not an anomaly.
But what's new about any of this? These games have always been around, and many of them have always been huge successes. Animal Crossing, Mario Kart and Smash Bros. didn't just start selling like hotcakes, they have always done well.

Like I said, FarmVille absolutely destroyed virtually all other games in terms of player count back in 2010, and there were tons of clones, some of which did really well, too. But what games ended up dominating multiplayer in the years that followed? MOBAs like League of Legends and DOTA, games with incredibly toxic communities and learning curves that resemble cliffs.
 

ThatGamingDude

I am a virgin
Because multiplayer games that require low mechanical skill, and reward communication + creativity have vastly bigger market potential than multiplayer games that emphasize high mechanical skill and do not reward communication + creativity.
That's a bit hyperbolic

Many games that require high mechanical skill also require good communication and creativity, especially in the team based multiplayer space in general

The reward is winning or accomplishing whatever goal the team has set for themselves

My buds and I, back when we were playing PUBG, would bait people by having a team mate dick around in the open around a shack, wait for the fire to go off at them, then all turn and snipe the aggressor

In your terms, a niche market, can still be hugely profitable and like any product does have the chance to become a popular thing

Just because you make something mechanically easy and add communication options doesn't mean your product is going to be more successful than another, it's not that simple
 

Men_in_Boxes

Snake Oil Salesman
But what's new about any of this? These games have always been around, and many of them have always been huge successes. Animal Crossing, Mario Kart and Smash Bros. didn't just start selling like hotcakes, they have always done well.

Like I said, FarmVille absolutely destroyed virtually all other games in terms of player count back in 2010, and there were tons of clones, some of which did really well, too. But what games ended up dominating multiplayer in the years that followed? MOBAs like League of Legends and DOTA, games with incredibly toxic communities and learning curves that resemble cliffs.

No man steps into the same river twice. For he is not the same man, and it is not the same river.

What's new? Literally every aspect of the industry is different today than it was 10, 20, 30 years ago. Some things changed slightly, other things changed dramatically.

There is literally nothing that's stayed the same.
 
Last edited:

lyan

Member
You're conveniently leaving out that other gunplay-focused titles released around the same time did extremely well, most notably Overwatch, Apex Legends and Warzone.


Blaming the success of Animal Crossing on the fact that it doesn't "emphasize gunplay" has to be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on this site.
I don't have an opinion on the topic but find it funny that both sides are citing COD for their argument.
 

Men_in_Boxes

Snake Oil Salesman
That's a bit hyperbolic

Many games that require high mechanical skill also require good communication and creativity, especially in the team based multiplayer space in general

The reward is winning or accomplishing whatever goal the team has set for themselves

My buds and I, back when we were playing PUBG, would bait people by having a team mate dick around in the open around a shack, wait for the fire to go off at them, then all turn and snipe the aggressor

In your terms, a niche market, can still be hugely profitable and like any product does have the chance to become a popular thing

Just because you make something mechanically easy and add communication options doesn't mean your product is going to be more successful than another, it's not that simple

I agree with you 100 percent.

High mechanical skill games aren't going anywhere. But that's not where the market growth is going to come from.
 
No man steps into the same river twice. For he is not the same man, and it is not the same river.

What's new? Literally every aspect of the industry is different today than it was 10, 20, 30 years ago. Some things changed slightly, other things changed dramatically.

There is literally nothing that's stayed the same.
Sure, things have changed. Nobody can deny that. Have they changed in the way you claim, though? You have yet to provide any real evidence for that.
 

ThatGamingDude

I am a virgin
I agree with you 100 percent.

High mechanical skill games aren't going anywhere. But that's not where the market growth is going to come from.
The market growth will come from releasing good products with a beneficial product growth plan, or you're able to adjust your current strategies/future growth plan accordingly in case of a deviation on your predictions (Massive growth, massive loss, etc)

Look at CP2077's release; could happen to any game, small or big, simple or complicated mechanics
To go back into the deviated genres, Among Us devs were able to adjust very well; their software was incredibly insecure and you could hack the shit out of it, but the increase in funds from free marketing allowed them to pivot quickly on security issues, stabilizing their product for further growth. If they didn't do that, it'd like be a flop
 

Men_in_Boxes

Snake Oil Salesman
Sure, things have changed. Nobody can deny that. Have they changed in the way you claim, though? You have yet to provide any real evidence for that.

Well, I guess I would just look at the multiplayer boom of the last few years, and compare those handful of games to the top multiplayer games from 10, 20, 30 plus years ago.

It would be interesting to hear what direction you think multiplayer, or games in general, is heading in.
 

Men_in_Boxes

Snake Oil Salesman
The market growth will come from releasing good products with a beneficial product growth plan, or you're able to adjust your current strategies/future growth plan accordingly in case of a deviation on your predictions (Massive growth, massive loss, etc)

Look at CP2077's release; could happen to any game, small or big, simple or complicated mechanics
To go back into the deviated genres, Among Us devs were able to adjust very well; their software was incredibly insecure and you could hack the shit out of it, but the increase in funds from free marketing allowed them to pivot quickly on security issues, stabilizing their product for further growth. If they didn't do that, it'd like be a flop

Well yeah. Good games tend to do well in the market compared to old games.

I can't find the interview now, but I remember Jade Raymond saying that games were like amusement park rides (rollercoasters) before and the future of games was heading toward them becoming amusement parks.

Brenden Greene, creator of PUBG, was asked what made PUBG so successful and he said something along the lines of "Players can play how they want."

I think they both nailed it.
 
Well, I guess I would just look at the multiplayer boom of the last few years, and compare those handful of games to the top multiplayer games from 10, 20, 30 plus years ago.
I don't think things would be as different as you think. The Steam rankings have been dominated by DOTA and CSGO for most of the past decade, on PS4 and Xbox it's probably mainstays like COD and FIFA.
Just look at this graph tracking player numbers for CSGO (orange), Fall Guys (green) and Among US (blue).

qG90kHK.png


I bet one of these games is still going to be in the Top 10 five years from now. Which do you think it is?

Brenden Greene, creator of PUBG, was asked what made PUBG so successful and he said something along the lines of "Players can play how they want."
Every developer says that about their game. Player choice and all that. It's almost never true. PUBG is still primarily a game about moving your crosshair over people and pulling the trigger. Creativity is gonna give you an advantage, but only if you're actually good at shooting stuff. You're not gonna be consistently winning matches if you're a terrible shot, no matter what galaxy brain scheme you come up with.
 
Last edited:

Men_in_Boxes

Snake Oil Salesman
I don't think things would be as different as you think. The Steam rankings have been dominated by DOTA and CSGO for most of the past decade, on PS4 and Xbox it's probably mainstays like COD and FIFA.
Just look at this graph tracking player numbers for CSGO (orange), Fall Guys (green) and Among US (blue).

qG90kHK.png


I bet one of these games is still going to be in the Top 10 five years from now. Which do you think it is?


Every developer says that about their game. Player choice and all that. It's almost never true. PUBG is still primarily a game about moving your crosshair over people and pulling the trigger. Creativity is gonna give you an advantage, but only if you're actually good at shooting stuff. You're not gonna be consistently winning matches if you're a terrible shot, no matter what galaxy brain scheme you come up with.

I would argue Fall Guys and Among Us aren't really built to have significant replay value. They're small, experimental games that nailed one very important thing (low barrier to entry in terms of skill requirement).

What happens when the game industry creates a low barrier to entry game, and puts a complex high depth game on top?

We haven't seen that really explored yet, and when it happens, it will be huge.

My analogy is often with zombie movies. We all like zombie movies because we think of what we would do in certain scenarios. Male, female, old, young, it doesny matter. Everyone thinks "Well they should have done this in that scenario..."

Think Eve Online X Mario Oddessey.

We're marching towards that with games.
 
Last edited:
Because multiplayer games that require low mechanical skill, and reward communication + creativity have vastly bigger market potential than multiplayer games that emphasize high mechanical skill and do not reward communication + creativity.

Fall Guys is a bad game. It's mini games provide very little depth. It exploded because the vast market looked at it and said "Oh my gosh, we can all play that. Let's buy it."

The 3 top selling Nintendo Switch games of all time give consumers the same thoughts that Fall Guys did. "That doesn't look that hard. I can do that."

This is not an anomaly.
Not buying what you're selling. Casual games have always been huge, and the audience has always been fickle. And while, okay sure, PUBG recoil can be challenging, the general slower pace rewards communication, and strategic thinking much more than say Warzone. PUBG didn't fade early because the recoil scared people off. PUBG faded because of the poor presentation, and massive technical problems, including a complete disaster of a launch on Xbox paired with console exclusivity.

Mechanical depth is nowhere near as off-putting as you make it out to be. I'd even argue that it's the core appeal of video games. A minute to learn, a lifetime to master will always sell. Add in novelty and you've got yourself a winner. Look at something like Rocket League. Fun at any level, yet at the highest skill tiers it's one of the most mechanically demanding games of all time. I used to discount the F2P factor a little bit, but since going F2P it seems like online users for Rocket League have increased tenfold. Apparently $20 is still a significant barrier to entry, at least compared to F2P or a fiver for Among Us.

Anyway, looking at the source tweet I think saying PUBG 2 is confirmed is an overstatement. And it's certainly not clear if it's really a new game or just a much needed rebuild/remaster of the current game.
 

Great Hair

Banned
Another 10 years of the same sh*t. This time on _M_A_R_S_ sponsored by SpaceX and Elon Musk. Someone unplug the internet please.
 

Heimdall_Xtreme

Jim Ryan Fanclub's #1 Member
It sounds like development of PUBG 2 started at the beginning of 2020 with the target platforms being next gen consoles, PC, and mobile.

Apparently The Callisto Protocol (Dead Space looking game) is set in the PUBG universe which means PUBG 2 could be placed in a sci fi setting.

share.jpg


WCCFthecallistoprotocol1.jpg


This has a chance at being the biggest budget multiplayer exclusive of all time. PUBG sold over 70 million copies (+ microtransactions) and PUBG Corp is in way better shape today than it was back in 2017. According to GlassDoor, they have anywhere between 500 - 1,000 employees.

What does PUBG 2 do to advance the genre? As I see it, the safe bets are...

- More than 100 participants per match.
- More unique sci fi weapons + items.
- Adding AI enemies in the map.
- Destructible environments?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



WORST DISAPPOINTMENT OF 2021, THE FACT THAT PUBG IS THE SAME UNIVERSE AS CALLISTO PROTOCOL
 
Last edited:

BLAUcopter

Gold Member
Starting playing this again on the series X. Pubg on console has come a long way and the 60fps really helps it shine.

Still the most intense BR game IMO. Looking forward to a sequel.
 

Men_in_Boxes

Snake Oil Salesman



A PUBG leaker (seems legit) suggests PUBG 2 is set in modern day, will focus on precise shooting, and is being made by the original PUBG team.

Nothing really groundbreaking here but it'll be interesting to see what innovations the team comes up with.
 
Last edited:

CeeJay

Member
Using an improved engine that isn't a cobbled together mess held up with duct tape would be a good start.

Add a proper day and night cycle along with changing weather and various other pve elements like in the Hunger Games where certain areas on the map will have their own specific challenges and dangers that are a very real threat. Maybe even seasons that change over a longer period of time (like FH4) which present their own unique challenges e.g. lots of rain in spring, heat exhaustion and hydration issues in summer, lack of foliage cover in autumn and cold weather and snow (footprints) in winter.

This would make it difficult to traverse some areas and make travelling at night less risky in some respect yet more dangerous in others. Do you camp in one area for a long time while planning a short but dangerous trek to the next area or travel a longer route through a safer zone that you know will take you go through a natural pinch point on the map that is a good place to be ambushed. Just adding these would make it possible to get down to the last few and even win some matches by just being a stealthy survivor.
 
Top Bottom