They do a lot of support work, but now and then they get out a project of their own. Rumbleverse was well regarded by its audience, but it was also like the 90th battle royale to come out, and it never stood a chance.
It was a competitive mainstay for years. Like with MvC2, they could probably charge for this one game what they’re going to charge for the whole collection, and people would pay it.
What’s the multiplayer situation like for these games? They don’t list LAN in the features for the first game, but there’s mention of it in the Steam forums, and I’m not sure if it was removed or something. Presumably no split screen?
According to Circana, the physical market has halved in the past three years, and potential US tariffs on Mexico aren’t going to help the physical game market. The longer it takes Sony to release a PS6, the less likely it is that it will have a disc drive.
This is near and dear to me, and I’d say it goes beyond just co-op. We used to get “the whole package” with a game. Arguably Call of Duty is one of the few still offering it. We used to have games with campaigns and multiplayer. Story mode and challenge rooms. Other modes of play sitting alongside the main event to round out the package. Now developers look at any data point to see how many people are using it, and if the number isn’t high enough, they cut it. But that’s a mistake. Most people might only dip their toes into these side features, but they can usually be implemented relatively cheaply (because of asset reuse), and they can add a ton of value even if most players don’t spend a lot of time in them. Co-op is one of those things.
The games that used to offer these co-op modes tended to stop getting attention from their publishers. Then once they’ve got a multiplayer mode, they try to make it a live service and monetize it instead of just letting it be. I was screaming at my monitor when I read that Naughty Dog open letter about canceling the Last of Us multiplayer game that said they had two choices and neither of them was making a multiplayer game that they just sold for a box price and didn’t manage as a live service; the possibility, seemingly, had never even crossed their minds. Co-op games can’t just be a campaign you play through once with a friend; they have to be PVE grinds where you play the same content over and over until the next pack of it comes out in a few weeks. The likes of a Baldur’s Gate 3 or an It Takes Two feel rare by comparison.
Really? Because there are plenty of reviews that captured the state of that game at release, and they’re generally better at articulating it than the guy who has 1000 hours in a game and calls it “literally unplayable” in a Steam review.