I remember when Gears 3 peaked at 2500 players a day with less than 500 when it was night in the US. I doubt the game will be able to sustain players in the long run. I think the skill ceiling is too high.
What's great about Gears 5 is that they added two new MP modes that'll help bring in new people to the franchise, So now there's a total of three multiplayer modes that don't focus on the gnasher. Gears 5 and Game Pass should do a much better job of bringing in new people to the franchising and keeping them.This is my guess too. Personally I find that the way Gears' multiplayer has been designed has increasingly pandered to the core in a way which has made me feel less and less interested in it. The level to which Gears 5's multiplayer revolves around the gnasher and the wall bounce is an enormous turn off to me and I can't imagine many players new to Gears will tolerate it at all. I didn't play Gears 4 much, but Gears 5's ranked play feels more one note than I ever remember it feeling in 1 2 or 3. I guess TC's hope is that the arcade modes solve that, but I'm really unconvinced. Personally I feel like I do want a classic Gears experience, but what I think of as classic Gears multiplayer is so, so different to what Gears 5 offers.
But standard edition is high on the list in almost every country. I'm a little bit confused, it can be that high only with yesterday players.Also, this just being Ultimate Edition. Standard Edition launched yesterday, let's see what that means.
This is my guess too. Personally I find that the way Gears' multiplayer has been designed has increasingly pandered to the core in a way which has made me feel less and less interested in it. The level to which Gears 5's multiplayer revolves around the gnasher and the wall bounce is an enormous turn off to me and I can't imagine many players new to Gears will tolerate it at all. I didn't play Gears 4 much, but Gears 5's ranked play feels more one note than I ever remember it feeling in 1 2 or 3. I guess TC's hope is that the arcade modes solve that, but I'm really unconvinced. Personally I feel like I do want a classic Gears experience, but what I think of as classic Gears multiplayer is so, so different to what Gears 5 offers.
So is everyone only using Netflix for the free 30 days too? My post was an exaggeration, but only to compensate for the exaggeration in the post I was quoting. The reality is in the middle.Oh come on. That's a ridiculous exaggeration. Microsoft have been making it very easy to get Game Pass far more cheaply than it will ultimately be. There are frequently free codes around, they're offering £2 for 2 months for first time UGP subscribers (and even allow you to do that if you've signed up to GP in the past), and of course the well publicised ways you could very cheaply upgrade from Gold to UGP. It's hardly unusual for new services to try and get people in cheaply early on, but there is a huge gap between getting people to subscribe briefly for far, far less than the standard price, and getting people to subscribe long term.
The idea that there are 'hundreds' of long term subscribers for every one person who's paid £1 for a month to play Gears 5 is absurd. Christ. The five people I personally know who are doing this have all taken advantage of such a deal and I don't think any of us would consider the full price of UGP for one month let alone one year.
Personally, I would simply have ignored Gears if there wasn't a very cheap way for me to play it. I wouldn't have paid for one month of UGP at standard price for the sake of a game I thought I might get some enjoyment out of. £2 for 2 months is a no brainer however, especially as it includes Xbox Live Gold.
But they launched in different stages of Fortnite popularity so you can't compare it like that.
This is my guess too. Personally I find that the way Gears' multiplayer has been designed has increasingly pandered to the core in a way which has made me feel less and less interested in it. The level to which Gears 5's multiplayer revolves around the gnasher and the wall bounce is an enormous turn off to me and I can't imagine many players new to Gears will tolerate it at all. I didn't play Gears 4 much, but Gears 5's ranked play feels more one note than I ever remember it feeling in 1 2 or 3. I guess TC's hope is that the arcade modes solve that, but I'm really unconvinced. Personally I feel like I do want a classic Gears experience, but what I think of as classic Gears multiplayer is so, so different to what Gears 5 offers.
I don't think it will get down to tiny numbers really fast or anything, but I'd be pretty surprised if this holds in the Top 10 for very long.
RDR2 release in october also.But they launched in different stages of Fortnite popularity so you can't compare it like that.
So is everyone only using Netflix for the free 30 days too? My post was an exaggeration, but only to compensate for the exaggeration in the post I was quoting. The reality is in the middle.
Not to mention multiplayer is a big deal for Gears 5, and for those enjoying the online play they're going to have to keep subscribing or eventually buy the game.
Also, I notice from your post that in your scenario Microsoft has gotten £2 from you where they would otherwise had £0. Perhaps you'll consider keeping your subscription alive at the end of the two months if you decide you don't want to miss out on The Outer Worlds, and then Ori 2, the day one indies, etc etc
So is everyone only using Netflix for the free 30 days too? My post was an exaggeration, but only to compensate for the exaggeration in the post I was quoting. The reality is in the middle.
Also, I notice from your post that I'm your scenario Microsoft has gotten £2 from you where they would otherwise had £0. Perhaps you'll consider keeping your subscription alive at the end of the two months if you decide you don't want to miss out on The Outer Worlds
The high number of players from Game Pass isn't a bug or a slight against the game. It's the entire point.
Neither Epic nor The Coalition can destroy the Gnasher or wall-bouncing because the players invented it. They took the system and made it something glorious and entirely their own. I don't know why anyone would want to stop that. There's nothing better than just wall bouncing around some hapless fool, blasting him with a shotgun, and continuing on to fight the real opponents without even breaking your stride.
Nice using just the online user metric for a game which is on XGP, and forgetting to mention that if you check steamdb. It has "100,000 .. 200,000" estimated owners. Legit downplaying the PC sales so hard.
Personally, I'm not a fan of using the XBOX store as a metric. It's a microcosm of a microcosm here in the UK and throughout the EU. It isn't representative and so I'm always confused as to why it's used as some type of metric. Especially when, steam, paints a starkly different picture.
That's not what I was talking about. In October of 2018 to beat Fortnite's #1 spot your game needed X amount of players, and in September 2019 to take Fortnite's #1 spot your game needs completely different Y amount of players.
Nobody is saying what is more popular? The user asked about BLOPS 4.That's not what I was talking about. In October of 2018 to beat Fortnite's #1 spot your game needed X amount of players, and in September 2019 to take Fortnite's #1 spot your game needs completely different Y amount of players.
You can't make claims like Gears5 is more popular than RDR2 on Xbox without knowing raw peak player numbers for each game.
The irony is that the contradiction in your post is strong. Steam doesn't include anyone playing via Game Pass PC, so how is that a useful metric when discussing PC player numbers? I'm playing the game via Game Pass PC, as are the majority of others on here at least, and won't be included here on this metric. And obviously it doesn't give us any further information on Xbox player numbers either.
Personally, I'm not a fan of using the XBOX store as a metric. It's a microcosm of a microcosm here in the UK and throughout the EU. It isn't representative and so I'm always confused as to why it's used as some type of metric. Especially when, steam, paints a starkly different picture.
It doesn't really sound like you know what you want. Why would you want Gears to be like other multiplayer games and offer less varied content?I have. It's okay. I enjoy it about as much as I enjoy ranked, to be honest. I feel like I want something in between the two offerings.
I'm really unconvinced that the best way for The Coalition to handle Gears' multiplayer is to offer two extremely different ways of playing. They may believe they're offering the best of both worlds but they're not really. They're offering something palatable to a new player, yes, but it lacks meat. On the other side they're offering something that has been catered around an increasingly small niche. This feels extremely different to the approach of most big successful multiplayer games. Whether it's Fortnite or Apex or Overwatch or R6 Siege League of Legends, you basically play the same game however good you are. They add casual modes around the side, but the main game is the main game.
Gears as a franchise has been painted into a situation where its main game isn't appealing to new players. I see that as a gigantic problem.
I think they can destroy wall bouncing, they just decided not to and, to be fair, that decision was made a long time ago. You and many others in the 'core' Gears community love wall bouncing. As someone that used to count myself such a fan, I do not enjoy wall bouncing, always saw it as a glitch, and was disappointed with Epic's decision to legitimise it. I understand why they did it, because they feared the backlash, but I think in doing so they pandered to a small crowd, turned off a lot of people, and made it extremely difficult to attract new fans. It was a decision at odds with progress and it is an increasingly big problem as Gears matures as a franchise because they can never step beyond the flaws of the cover system they built almost fifteen years ago.
I understand why they did it, because they feared the backlash, but I think in doing so they pandered to a small crowd, turned off a lot of people, and made it extremely difficult to attract new fans.
Amazing results, this game is special.
LMAO at the downplay tho.
People still don't seem to understand what gamepass is trying to do. Sure you can subscribe for $2 and then cancel
It, but that's why they add new games to the service to keep you in it. Sure you beat the gears campaign but then you see DMC 5 sitting there and then you see oh, maybe I'll check out sea of thieves and so on. People on this site probably aren't the demographic since they are more likely to buy games day one, but tons of people didn't buy a game like DMC V or just cause 4 or tomb raider etc. that's what MS is trying to build
Just compare it to Netflix etc. they are getting you to subscribe to watch Stranger things and hoping you will stay to watch British bake off or wait until next month to see what else is new
I guess it's just a difference in mentality. We all started as beginners and when I got destroyed by someone wallbouncing my first thought was "wow, how can i do unto others as was done unto me" and not to just give up and quit. I don't really see how it's different from people getting demolished in their first game of Fornite or League of Legends either.
I understand your criticism but meanwhile we're in a thread about how Gears 5 is the most played game (in hours played), beating Fortnite where games like COD, Apex and RDR2 couldn't.
It's clearly not a small crowd that TC have "pandered" to. Gears clearly resonates with a lot of people. Again, this chart isn't 'people who downloaded the game for free with a trial' or the like. It's hours played. People are playing Gears for more time than they are any other game on the platform. They clearly haven't turned off that many people. It's factually not a small crowd playing it.
It is ridiculously premature to look at the game's launch metrics to decide whether or not the game's multiplayer appeals to a wide crowd.
The difference is that wallbouncing was an exploit which Epic ultimately decided to legitimise rather than risk the wrath of their core fans. You're right though, it is a difference in mentality. I actively avoid using bugs and glitches and exploits and even things I feel are unbalanced in games. As for why it is different to getting beaten in other games, it really depends on whether you think wall bouncing is a good mechanic. I do not. It's unintuitive, looks awful from an animation point of view, and completely contradicts the general play of Gears which is slow, considered and weighty. It is an aberation of a game mechanic.
It is ridiculously premature to look at the game's launch metrics to decide whether or not the game's multiplayer appeals to a wide crowd.
It is ridiculously premature to look at the game's launch metrics to decide whether or not the game's multiplayer appeals to small crowd.
You're right of course, but surely it's equally as ridiculous to say that because Rodelero doesn't like wall-bouncing then TC are "pandering to a small crowd" and that they're turning off players. In a thread about how the game is being played more than flippin' Fortnite no less.
Most people know that the discounts and gamepass are huge contributing factors in Gears 5's placement on this chart. Most people know that a game pass download is not equivalent value to an actual sale. Most people know that Gears 5 getting up that high is really impressive. Most of the discussions on these issues are basically about "you are being too positive" and "you aren't being positive enough"..
.lmao at the downplay
great result. Gears 5 is an amazing game, hope it finds success.
We will have to wait and see whether the arcade offering does solve the problem,
Unless you work at Microsoft, how do you know what the comparative value is between a Gamepass download and a retail sale?
This doesn't make sense, Fortnite dominates PS4 store as well right? So how can you glean the status of quality of a store from Gears (quality game) overtaking it.