98
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2024
98 points (98.0% liked)
Games
16728 readers
534 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
League of Legends was enticing and built an audience out of regularly adding new stuff to it. I can't think of an analogue for this in any other competitive game or sport, but live service games always wane when new content slows down, because that new content was juicing the numbers. Likewise, every new champ they added, especially beyond around 100, is going to make it more daunting to start playing if you weren't already. So unless they had a roster of a few dozen champs at most, at launch, and never changed them, I don't see how you build one of these to last decades. I mean, people do still play Third Strike 25 years later, but that's a tiny fraction of the player base you're talking about, and Riot would sooner wipe LoL off the face of the earth than allow it to be playable for a population the size of Third Strike's right now.
Yeah I hear you, but they could have been far more judicious. LoL has lasted 15 years while being horribly mismanaged, so I don't think 30 years is really that crazy. They have continued to add like 4-5 champions every single year, plus reworks and constant, incessant, unecessary rebalancing. I think you could easily slow all of that shit down by a factor of 5 and the game would still remain fresh enough for all but the most hard-core players. And those guys should probably spend less time playing anyway.
If you started with a roster of 70, added 5 per year for the first 5 years, 3/yr for the next 5, and 2/yr for the next 20, you'd end up at 150, which is totally manageable. LoL is currently at 167.
I get that, but that's why I made the comparison with Lemmy. What if LoL weren't run by a company, but by the community itself, and the priority was simply to keep the game in a fair and balanced state and maybe gradually add a few new mechanics and heroes over time. That would be possible to keep going for a long time.
The game is inherently fun for the mechanical skill, strategic and tactical thinking, and teamwork/competition. You don't need all that fancy new shit once a month to keep people playing imo. I enjoyed that stuff very early on, but it quickly became annoying because it was like you had to constantly relearn the game every year because of all the changes. And I think Riot just kept leaning harder into that because it was the most profitable in the short term, without realizing how many people eventually stopped playing due the fact that the game they once loved became unrecognizable.
I think you'll find that if you go to the forums for any live service game whose popularity has visibly waned, which is nearly all of them on Steam, since Steam makes those numbers public, you'll see people attributing it to things that the developer did, balancing or otherwise, but that seems naive to me. It seems inevitable that the popularity of these things will wane over time. To end up with anything else strikes me as a stroke of luck, even if the game is a masterpiece in competitive design.
We have templates for this already. Online games that predate the live service era can still be played and enjoyed in perpetuity, including the likes of Quake (this one's even open source), StarCraft, and, once again, Third Strike. You can check the Twitch numbers for each of them, and we can actually get really good numbers for how many people are playing Third Strike at any given time, give or take a few random arcade cabinets out in the wild, via FightCade. They don't sustain a playerbase the size of League of Legends, and I don't think any game ever will without a drip feed of new content. Chess hasn't had a rule change in over 100 years, to my knowledge, and despite being proven to stand up to the test of time competitively, it will never do League of Legends numbers either.
Are you sure about that? I would assume there are many more chess players worldwide.
Most video games that have existed have followed a similar trajectory, but that doesn't make it inevitable by any means. Competitive games are typically the ones with the longest lifespans. Some people are still playing Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance online and possibly Battle for Middle Earth 2 as well.
But these models are not profitable, so game developers don't try to follow them. Perhaps the reason why popularity seems to inevitably decline is because the gaming industry is practicing planned obsolescence. They deliberately put older games out to pasture once the profit streams have dried up, but if the developers weren't so focused on profit, maybe that wouldn't always happen.
Probably only by the most liberal definition. Chess matches aren't watched by a crowd that could fill a stadium like soccer is, and even after a surge during the pandemic, it doesn't pull numbers on Twitch like League of Legends does on a bad day. I've played chess, but I don't, present tense, play chess, you know?
I brought up the three video games I did precisely because it's impossible to force obsolescence or put them out to pasture. Quake being open source allows for a game that's proven to be competitively viable and enticing to be maintained and expanded by the community the way you described, but it doesn't stick with its audience the way any "shiny new thing" sticks. Some people are still playing these games the way some people are still playing Supreme Commander and Battle for Middle-earth, but once again, they'll always stabilize at a number way lower than a game like League of Legends with frequent new content, regardless of balance.
But if someone said hey, wanna play a game of chess?, you would be able to. Partially because the rules haven't changed since you last played. So that counts for me.
You might wanna check the numbers on League, although they haven't published anything official in years. Viewership is down massively compared to 5-10 years ago.
You may be right, but I have a hunch that there is fresh ground out there for the adventurous game developer willing to break it. Video games are still a very new type of media and I don't think we've seen all the forms that they can take. It's like being in the silent film era and having a discussion about the potential future of pornographic films. It's hard to know what the future has in store; never say never, as they say.
I checked the numbers on League just before that comment. They're still at about the 100k average they've been since the beginning of Twitch Tracker's history for it in 2017, with a similar bump that chess got during the pandemic. I'm all for those evergreen competitive games; I refuse to play LoL anymore, among other reasons, because it can't ever be one of those. But I'm very confident that LoL has the numbers it does because it continually introduced new things, and that always has an expiration date.