Arc Raiders had a free playtest this weekend, and some players are arguing that the game needs a PvE-only mode. In the game players are tasked with scavenging resources from an open map infested with enemy robots alongside other players, with players not in your group effectively being another type of enemy. This, of course, has some players saying that fighting enemy robots is enough, that they don’t need the extra stress of having to fight off other players too. The pro-PvP players are, of course, saying that this is what the game is, and if you don’t like it you should go play something else.
It’s not like that’s never been done before. Sea of Thieves is another PvPvE game, and not too long ago it too got a PvE-only mode.
What do you say about this? Should a game that wants to be both PvE and PvP also offer exclusive modes?
And that’s completely fine. But by the developers choosing to go that route, they just outcast the people like me that will not buy that type of game.
Being said though, I find it difficult to understand why a studio would want to go that way. Like, I am the player. If I want to make the game easier on myself, then I should be able to. If I’m willing to spend money on your game, It doesn’t really matter how hard it is.
I get that if a game has an endgame that is heavily PvP based, that it might affect PvP by allowing a PvE only mode. But, to me, I don’t really care because, regardless of their decision, I wouldn’t be in that PvP area anyway. It’s just one outcome is I spend money on their game, and one outcome is I don’t.
Many games I can see them going this route on, such as Overwatch 2 or Dota, but survival RPG games, I don’t see the point of having that type of system for, And I definitely think they’re losing money by going that route.
Yeah, more games need to be like Amazon’s New World, where they kneecap their own game in an effort to appeal to the masses like you and the shareholders.
Tennis would also have wider appeal if you didn’t have to run back and forth so much. They should look into that.
Personally, I don’t think either comparison is valid. These two items are nowhere near comparable to the original comment. With tennis if you don’t move, you can’t play. With the examples I gave above most of the game would remain available to the player, just in a single player or PvE environment. Survival RPG’s can easily be made either SP or PvE only, Dune actually came super close, they just decided to heavily limit the end game PvE compatible areas and locked the passage via a PvP area which is why I decided to just not get it.
BUT ignoring the false equivalence fallacy, if the player is willing to spend money on the game in the first place, it shouldn’t matter. Even more-so when the game is basically Ark Survival on Scorched Earth with a dune skin on it and a few additional mechanics added on. There was no decent reason that the game could not allow for a PvE only mode or at least the ability to self host your servers. They said they couldn’t do either under the excuse that they wanted the game to be an MMO(which arguably they failed to deliver on as well)
As for New World? As a person who played it from beta(which I do regret because its not my style game, I just really wanted to like it), New Worlds downfall wasn’t the dev’s trying to cater to everyone, it was the lack of a story/ambition to want to play. It was the same gameplay loop over and over with no drive to want to continue the story. This combined with the failure to have a decent “end game” (story line wise) at launch killed it’s userbase. They promoted a very heavily PvP based cooperative system and then massively fell through on the promises. This combined with the inconsistent servers and the boring game-play elements, made player retention extremely difficult. That’s not appealing to masses, that’s failing to deliver on promises and making a shit game.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
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.
And that’s completely fine. But by the developers choosing to go that route, they just outcast the people like me that will not buy that type of game.
Being said though, I find it difficult to understand why a studio would want to go that way. Like, I am the player. If I want to make the game easier on myself, then I should be able to. If I’m willing to spend money on your game, It doesn’t really matter how hard it is.
I get that if a game has an endgame that is heavily PvP based, that it might affect PvP by allowing a PvE only mode. But, to me, I don’t really care because, regardless of their decision, I wouldn’t be in that PvP area anyway. It’s just one outcome is I spend money on their game, and one outcome is I don’t.
Many games I can see them going this route on, such as Overwatch 2 or Dota, but survival RPG games, I don’t see the point of having that type of system for, And I definitely think they’re losing money by going that route.
Yeah, more games need to be like Amazon’s New World, where they kneecap their own game in an effort to appeal to the masses like you and the shareholders.
Tennis would also have wider appeal if you didn’t have to run back and forth so much. They should look into that.
Personally, I don’t think either comparison is valid. These two items are nowhere near comparable to the original comment. With tennis if you don’t move, you can’t play. With the examples I gave above most of the game would remain available to the player, just in a single player or PvE environment. Survival RPG’s can easily be made either SP or PvE only, Dune actually came super close, they just decided to heavily limit the end game PvE compatible areas and locked the passage via a PvP area which is why I decided to just not get it.
BUT ignoring the false equivalence fallacy, if the player is willing to spend money on the game in the first place, it shouldn’t matter. Even more-so when the game is basically Ark Survival on Scorched Earth with a dune skin on it and a few additional mechanics added on. There was no decent reason that the game could not allow for a PvE only mode or at least the ability to self host your servers. They said they couldn’t do either under the excuse that they wanted the game to be an MMO(which arguably they failed to deliver on as well)
As for New World? As a person who played it from beta(which I do regret because its not my style game, I just really wanted to like it), New Worlds downfall wasn’t the dev’s trying to cater to everyone, it was the lack of a story/ambition to want to play. It was the same gameplay loop over and over with no drive to want to continue the story. This combined with the failure to have a decent “end game” (story line wise) at launch killed it’s userbase. They promoted a very heavily PvP based cooperative system and then massively fell through on the promises. This combined with the inconsistent servers and the boring game-play elements, made player retention extremely difficult. That’s not appealing to masses, that’s failing to deliver on promises and making a shit game.