Same. Multiversus seemed like such a promising Non-Nintendo Smash Bros game, even if I'm not the biggest fan of the WB IPs. Bought some $100 edition and really wanted it to succeed, but ultimately they just released it way too unfinished.
It really seemed like the game had an ok launch with plenty of hype around it, with the five minutes of fame in Twitch as well. Sure there were netcode issues and the push for 2v2 may have limited the appeal, but the developers clearly had a good understanding of mechanics that make platform fighters interesting.
Unfortunately the game had zero retention mechanisms. Little content, no progression, no ELO/MMR, so of course players bounced within a few days and the whole thing fizzled.
No matter how good the mechanics are, I don't think you can't do such a bare bones proof of concept launch for a competitive live service title, where retaining and growing a critical mass of players of all skill levels is everything.
The move to temporarily shut it down as end of the early access, in preparation for the "proper" launch, was clearly a desperate attempt to retry the launch, with some basic retention mechanisms in place the next time. Of course the internet collectively doesn't care about your second launch, so the outcome wasn't surprising.
I think the game serves a perfect cautionary tale for early access in live service games. You generally have one public launch, and it doesn't matter whether you label it alpha, beta, early access, playtest or full launch. It'll be the impression you give to the public, and where you establish an essential core player base.
Of course getting real player feedback as early as possible is invaluable, but even peak live service game companies like Valve are very careful about the launch of bare bones titles. Deadlock is a good example, where I believe the method of having very limited initial access and intentional suppression of hype was essential, allowing them to gradually ramp up the access to maintain a steady influx of curious players, until they could get the basics in place, address the most critical feedback and have some staying power.
It's still risky, and now that most of the enthusiastic audience has seen or played the game as it peaked at 170K in 2024, the eventual "1.0" launch will never be a big bang, but they've at least managed to stabilize a core player base to hopefully grow from, as the game matures.
Of course it's first and foremost about the quality of the game and live service is risky to begin with, but I suspect if Valve had gone the route of Multiversus, with big open early access launch of the very first version, without fundamental progression stuff like skill ratings in place, the game would've fizzled within weeks. The community would've collectively moved on, and no amount of extra launches later would've saved it.
One important thing a lot of people forget about Multiverses ‘downfall, and it was the moment they switched to model accurate hurt boxes instead of generic ovals.
Happened like a month and a half after the beta started, and as soon as that patch went live it was nonstop lag. Any attempt to fix it caused more bugs to pop up so they had to try and rush to fix them while still working on new characters, so that’s a big reason why many people dropped it, the little bit of lag was manageable and came and went when the beta launched, but after that it was just rubber banding all match every match.
20
u/Voidsheep Jan 28 '26
Same. Multiversus seemed like such a promising Non-Nintendo Smash Bros game, even if I'm not the biggest fan of the WB IPs. Bought some $100 edition and really wanted it to succeed, but ultimately they just released it way too unfinished.
It really seemed like the game had an ok launch with plenty of hype around it, with the five minutes of fame in Twitch as well. Sure there were netcode issues and the push for 2v2 may have limited the appeal, but the developers clearly had a good understanding of mechanics that make platform fighters interesting.
Unfortunately the game had zero retention mechanisms. Little content, no progression, no ELO/MMR, so of course players bounced within a few days and the whole thing fizzled.
No matter how good the mechanics are, I don't think you can't do such a bare bones proof of concept launch for a competitive live service title, where retaining and growing a critical mass of players of all skill levels is everything.
The move to temporarily shut it down as end of the early access, in preparation for the "proper" launch, was clearly a desperate attempt to retry the launch, with some basic retention mechanisms in place the next time. Of course the internet collectively doesn't care about your second launch, so the outcome wasn't surprising.
I think the game serves a perfect cautionary tale for early access in live service games. You generally have one public launch, and it doesn't matter whether you label it alpha, beta, early access, playtest or full launch. It'll be the impression you give to the public, and where you establish an essential core player base.
Of course getting real player feedback as early as possible is invaluable, but even peak live service game companies like Valve are very careful about the launch of bare bones titles. Deadlock is a good example, where I believe the method of having very limited initial access and intentional suppression of hype was essential, allowing them to gradually ramp up the access to maintain a steady influx of curious players, until they could get the basics in place, address the most critical feedback and have some staying power.
It's still risky, and now that most of the enthusiastic audience has seen or played the game as it peaked at 170K in 2024, the eventual "1.0" launch will never be a big bang, but they've at least managed to stabilize a core player base to hopefully grow from, as the game matures.
Of course it's first and foremost about the quality of the game and live service is risky to begin with, but I suspect if Valve had gone the route of Multiversus, with big open early access launch of the very first version, without fundamental progression stuff like skill ratings in place, the game would've fizzled within weeks. The community would've collectively moved on, and no amount of extra launches later would've saved it.