PDA

View Full Version : For Honor - Long term population and matchmaking



TournyMasterBot
02-26-2017, 04:13 PM
This is probably going to be an unpopular post, but I have a theory:

For Honor will not last a long time without becoming free to play. After this game fully exhausts it's 'new game smell', For Honor needs to transition to free to play.

Now, before you start freaking out with 'OH MY GOD HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT - THEY DESERVE TO BE PAID FOR THE GAME!' -- Chill, I bought gold edition. I'm not asking for a refund.

For Honor is already setup with a freemium model, where you can pay real money for steel to get gear and characters. Dropping the $60 price tag would help to incentivize people to pick up the game, and stick with it through the learning curve and skill gap. It would also help create a much large pool of people who are 'fresh blood' to help matchmaking in that regard.

The main problem I see with this game, long term:

- Full price $60 game, taking the high learning curve to become decent, and low steam reviews, many people will refund the game at the < 2 hour mark (since that's steam's cutoff) -- Two hours IS NOT enough time to even scratch the surface of this game's complexity, but it IS enough to know that you have a long, hard road ahead of you.
- Population will become increasingly 'elite', where the skill gap to new players starting fresh will be overwhelming. Even if you take bots into account, there's a significant skill gap between a level 3 bot, and a human who has been practicing.
- Population will increasingly diminish, it is the natural state of games, people get bored and look for other things. A consistent flow of new blood is required for fighting games (and really any multiplayer game) to succeed

I am already seeing the same people in matches day after day, which is partially because of how the matchmaking selects people, but also because the pool of people just really isn't that large in any given game mode. For me, dominion matches can take upwards of 8 minutes to find a match, which is absolutely ridiculous when an entire game might last that long. Often, it takes as long to find a 1v1 as it does to actually play the 1v1 (~3 minutes)

I acknowledge there are levers that can be pulled to widen the matchmaking pool, but at the end of the day the success of this games comes down to there being enough players available to reach the 'critical mass' to just play the game. We're only a few weeks in, and that critical mass is already feeling in jeopardy.

IEnforceRI
02-26-2017, 05:35 PM
It's too soon to judge either the post-launch content or the amount of players who stop playing the game. The only thing that can happen is using this combat system into another game, but after 3-4 years. I really believe the game will just keep getting popular, as all combat games do, because there is always a better player to challenge you, and always more stuff to learn. The skillcap problem you are mentioning is rightfully presented here, and i already have played with players that had just finished training, or they just, well, werent that good. This is a problem with the player base, not the game, and there will always be this problem in combat games. I have played MK X and Injustice, and i have to tell you the online experience and the skill difference is so bad, that they win flawlesly while u can with against very hard bots. Finally, the population. In Open Beta, at peak hours, there were about 150k-160k players online. Now there are about 40k-60k.(PC) You may say "this is low" but look at it this way. Battlefield 1 had about 250k-300k players in peak hours (open beta), while the full game has 50k. This is terrible, because the game is much more hyped and its genre is a hella more popular than fighting games. So, the game is fine, we know they will make it better just like Rainbow Six, and the whole thing will just keep getting bigger. So i have to say that becoming Free-To-Play is a NO, at least for the next year or two.

Thank you.