Idea stolen from Big Boss's movie thread.

- Red Dead Redemption 2 gets delayed, announcement from Rockstar happens sometime in February-March.
- Black Ops 4 is the next CoD, it's a modern/future setting like Blops 2.
- New Battlefield gets teased
- Halo 6 is the only thing Xbox has to show at E3
- Last of Us 2 is shown off at E3. Release date is early 2019.

Skyrim re-releases on the PS Vita.

Kingdom Hearts 3 is delayed again.

We get a vague look in the background of Nintendo's presentation that is a hint towards a new game coming out that won't be revealed for a few months after it

pubg dies when everyone finally realises its fucking garbage

chally will still be playing it

Dark souls remaster will sell so many copies that we'll finally have a demons souls remaster announced

Actually I'm talking about how all the people who stuck with the game throughout all its many many issues since it was released on Steam in early access. Because it's that much fun.

Because the game has several powers on its side that earlier games did not have (as much of): Streamers, Early Access, and China. In the months after release it was also the only major battle royale game on the market (which isn't the case anymore), being basically uncontested when people realised they liked the idea of battle royale games.

Link? Either way I already know minecraft was hugely popular.

https://twitter.com/Dinnerbone/status/553556703992889345

What in the first 6 months? Lmao every cod game practically died every time the new one came out. You're also comparing a very successful and established franchise with a game that had millions of sales and players throughout its very buggy early access stage and it's continued buggy released state.

In the first few months of release, CoD games were huge and remained the top-played games on console until the next one released, and then the cycle would continue. And even when a new game came out, the previous one would still maintain a decent population for another few months.

Your point was that none of the games on the list had a similar amount of players to pubg this far into its life cycle, so I gave an example.

GTA Online is boring as fuck with nothing to do after a while. They HAVE to keep releasing free content to keep people semi interested grinding for nonsensical shit, unlike PUBG which needs zero additional content to be ten times as fun.

Subjective on the "boring as fuck part". The "nothing to do" part is wrong. GTAO has plenty to do. If you spend all your time in free-roam instead of doing the actual activities and game modes of course you're going to run out of things to do. It had a shaky start but in its current state (scummy microtransactions aside) GTAO provides a fairly satisfying overall package and doesn't have to rely on free advertising from streamers to get its players.

It might, there are a lot of netcode issues, crashes, bugs etc. but I have faith that even though the developers are incompetent it's fun enough to keep a large player base for a while. But, who knows.

You've also got to consider that more battle royale games are coming out. If PUBG releases on PS4 it's going to have to compete with Fortnite which from what I've seen offers more in terms of content. At some point people are going to get bored of BR games and move onto whatever is the big fad of 2018.

H1Z1 and PlayerUnknown's Battle Royale on ARMA 3 were popular at the time it released.

There were plenty of streamers and Chinese playing that. Early Access is also not something that attracts more players, it anything I saw countless comments on various websites of people waiting to see if it'd ever come out of early access before buying it. In fact, you and others here that have bought it said the same thing. So that's a pretty weak argument.

H1Z1 is a zombie game, not a battle royale game, and the original BR is a mod. When people saw that this popular mod was getting a standlone, they naturally flocked to it, and those that avoided the mod because they didn't want to have to get ARMA 3 for it also flocked to it because the game was now accessible. So it's not like PUBG is some brand-new out-of-the-blue game, it already had a following as a popular mod before it became a standalone.

Nothing compared to PUBG, and it was only because they'd keep releasing a new game almost annually that they kept the population they had jumping from game to game. A well established and successful franchise vs a buggy game that has been in early access longer than it's been a full game.

See above.

I think we can all agree PUBG obviously has something CoD doesn't which has attracted such a large player base.

What? They're both dumb shooters with simple gameplay models that worked well which is why both of them attracted such large player bases, except CoD proved that it could hold onto its playerbase for several years whereas we haven't had time to see it with PUBG.

It's a shitty example because it proves my point dude. No "newcomer" game from some random company has had this type of success in such a short time in recent years.

Minecraft.

Actually fuckingn around in free roam is more entertaining than the missions/activities. They were fun at first but the gameplay is so basic and easy it's just grinding to buy the latest free DLC.

And don't put the microtransactions aside, they objectively make the game an MMO tier borefest.

This bit's down to subjectivity so no point in debating about it.

I don't see this game as a fad, it has a lot of depth to it.

haha

When you have good gameplay, everything else just falls into play. The only thing I can see killing this game off fast is not dealing with the lag and crashing. They've solved a lot of the issues regarding lag and personally the game hasn't crashed for me in a while but I see other people are having issues.

That's not the case though. "good gameplay" can only get you so far. Look at Destiny 2 - probably some of the best console FPS gameplay on the market, but the lack of meaningful endgame content resulted in it losing players pretty rapidly after launch.

Gameplay is good for attracting players in the early stage, but if a developer can't keep up with the good content in the years after release it's going to lose steam. PUBG will suffer if it can't keep up the content, especially when other BR games are coming along with more gameplay depth and variety.

I don't like that people just disregard this game as a fad and just shit streamers play to make money.

lol what. You may like the game but people aren't unreasonable in disregarding it. It's a dumb fun shooter that released at a good time.

A lot of love and hard work went into the game and it has really good gameplay. It's not just some flavor of the month game that's popular today and dead tomorrow. Tons of people said that and said it would never fully release, but here we are.

And yet even after release it's broken and lacking in content.

"A lot of love and hard work" goes into a lot of games, PUBG is nothing special.

Anyway we should probably either stop or move this to another thread.

also popular =/= objectively good

um

Didn't realise the original H1Z1 had a name change to Just Survive. But still, one other BR thing isn't much competition. H1Z1 and the BR genre in general weren't really on anyone's radar prior to PUBG.

That was my point, battle royale was already popular at the time. I literally just said that in my previous point. You were arguing it became popular because it was the only battle royale game available at the time, and that's completely wrong.

You missed the point. The popular battle royale mod was PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds before it became a standalone. So fans of the mod flocked to the standalone, as they would. The point was that PUBG already had a following when it was in mod form, rather than just having a sudden surge in popularity.

Not at all. While it isn't on the same level of ARMA's realism, it has a lot of mechanics that separate it from the average dumb shooter.

Like what? Play other Steam early access survival garbage and you'll find plenty of PUBG-like mechanics.

There's a lot of strategy involved and it has a huge learning curve if you want to win consistently. No offense but you haven't even won one game yet, how would you know if the game has depth or not when you barely play it or try to learn it?

You don't need to win a game to know if it has depth or not. Without turning this into a dickwaving contest, I've played more than enough of the game to know how it works. It's no deeper than any other large scale shooter around right now.

Halo would just release overpriced map packs, yet maintained a steady and sizable population for years. The original trilogy, anyways.

Because the Halo games also had enough content at launch, that the extra maps were just that - extras. It's also worth mentioning that the overall model for games is a lot different to how it was back in 2007 - for better or worse, they now follow a SaaS model, which is why the point about regular content updates is more relevant to games like Destiny 2 and PUBG's survival than to Halo 3, where things were only just starting to shift towards it.

LOL

Fortnite is literally just build shit like a raging autist and shoot in someone's direction until they die. You can't say PUBG has not depth and then point to shitty spinoffs like fortnite as what you consider to be depth. Now you're just being foolish.

You can literally reduce any game when you use language like that.

PUBG is just running around and shoot in someone's direction until they die.

lSee my comments above. It's not dumb in the least and if you play dumb you'll never win, let alone make top 10. The timing of it could've been bad, actually. There were a ton of great games out and coming out which could've made PUBG fade away if the game wasn't solid enough.

It released in late March. The period between that and September didn't really have many big or notable releases. Had PUBG launched in Early Access in the winter period where Battlefront, CoD and Destiny 2 were coming out you'd have a point.

I play it every day, there's nothing broken about it.

This is an argument I thought was reserved for Bethesda games.

Lag is an issue that's present in every online game, it isn't a PUBG specific issue.

Lag has improved since early access but that's about it. It's still horribly buggy. I've lost games because they decided to force me into getting stuck in some piece of geometry like a table just by walking close to it.

PUBG is special. It's rare that a game gets your adrenaline pumping these days. And if it doesn't do it for you, then it doesn't. I'm not saying you have to like the game, but you should respect what it is.

Special? It's just another shooter that's competent at what it does. I have no reason to respect it anymore than I do Battlefield.

Why? This thread is pretty much dead if it wasn't for or discussion. Who cares.

Because it's not relevant to the topic and is more likely driving away discussion.

It's popular because it's fun and competitive. You're grasping at straws now.

Just saying the popular=good seems to be the thing you push when people talk about the game negatively.