Why is it that some "fun" games have small player bases?

Advertising in normalfag areas. Paying streamers, etc.

>>387945054

so its possible that your game could be good or even great.. but if you are not greasing palms.. your game could die in its cradle?

>>387945272
yes, because at any time a customer has a choice between your game and thousands of others that can give them "fun" too. There is an extreme supply of "good enough" games out there when it comes to normalfag standards.

>>387945405

So in a case like law breakers where the content is there but the player base is not.. What should they do? I guess I am just bothered because I hate seeing good games with good devs die. Considering how many shit devs are out there that made shit games.

I will never forget the devs that made no mans sky and how that all turned out. That game sold a lot too but a lot of people got burned by them apparently.

There is also the aspect of time investment.
If the game is complex and takes time to get into/get good at, it will often get a pass from more casual players. Those games often end up with small, dedicated playerbases offering quality games but might be a bit hard for a rookie to get a foot in.
If I like the game I'll play it wether the playerbase is small or big.
The market is just simply oversaturated. All the casuals, youtubers and streamers simply hop from one game to the next because they need to ride that wave of fresh games to either finance their pityful existance or to stay hip and in the know.

>>387946019
From what I can see Lawbreakers released at a very bad time, as the multiplayer and "hero shooter" section is just filled with big titles soaking up almost all the share.
Some better marketing might help, because I didn't get to see any of it and what I did get to see didn't really made me go "oh, so that's how it plays!"
The game feels to be for a niche audience, despite adapting modern and mainstream trends to some degree. So best they can probably do is cater to their core nice audience and slowly grow it from there.

>>387944712
This Is best shooter ever played sadly and now days there nothing worth to play term of fps thank God dirty bomb is still good.

>>387946019
In that games case its a mix of just being unappealing to many (Like you said arena shooters arent very popular, not that they are bad or anything) and from what I can tell, low advertising.

The shit developer thing is another problem too. Because of how the industry turned out and how people are improperly trained now ("Game design school" fucking kill me), even with easy to use engines games come out with what feels like no effort put into them for QA.

On the subject of arena shooters.. What exactly makes them so unappealing? I love the genre but consistently, every single one recently has had shit player base. I don't mind losing over and over to "gregors" but maybe that turns some people off?

I feel like arena shooters should be crushing right now but they just aren't. What is so off putting to people about them compared to games like call of duty? Not saying call of duty is bad but what draws people to it rather than quake or unreal tournament?

>>387946540
Well it was good until today's update anyway.

>>387947820
Arena shooters usually don't hold your hand, don't constantly reward you or tell you you're doing a good job and take time to get into and good at.
They're marketing is usually very limited, too. Can't compete with call of duty and its billions of marketing and spread.

>>387947916
This.

Fucking first Ghost in the Shell fucked screwed the pooch with a shit update, now Dirty Bomb.
The list of games that I enjoy shooting people in is now down to 0.

>>387945272
Absolutely. It happens in almost every genre of multiplayer game. Things like brand power, marketing, and timing of release can easily make or break a game.