
With all the focus being placed on Concord recently — and its increasingly apparent failings — you'd be forgiven for forgetting about XDefiant, the Ubisoft shooter that launched on PS5 back in May. The live service title was met with decent reviews and actually seemed to be doing really well for itself at first, racking up some big player numbers.
However, we're now several months down the line, and word on the street is that the game's fallen off a cliff. Insider Gaming's Tom Henderson — who has a stellar track record when it comes to all things Ubisoft — reports that XDefiant is basically on the brink of being canned, unless its player count sees significant growth through the game's third season.
Supposedly, said player count has been in steady decline since that impressively positive launch period. Fewer and fewer players means less and less spending, and so Ubisoft's struggling to justify continued support. Reportedly, XDefiant — which is free-to-play, it should be noted — is barely hitting 20,000 concurrent players across all platforms. That's PS5, PC, and Xbox Series X|S.
Some sources have told Henderson that it's probably only a matter of time until layoffs occur at Ubisoft San Francisco. The article goes on to say that the studio's "toxic" work culture — which was reported on ahead of XDefiant's launch — is apparently still an issue. It all sounds rather bleak.
Have you played XDefiant? Did you think that talk of its demise would be happening just months after its release? Make sure your shots land in the comments section below.
Do you play XDefiant? (1,457 votes)
- Yes, I play it often
- Yeah, now and then
- Nah, I used to play it but I dropped off
- Nope, I tried it but didn't stick around
- No, I've never played it
[source insider-gaming.com]
Comments 61
Too many games in the space. You simply cannot pull people from the GaaS they have already invested years in.
Hit registration is apparently a problem, but the real problem is CoD coming out soon.
Although I don’t play any of these Live Service games, I know that there are several modern-military themed games of this genre that have been on the market for years and established themselves (any many that haven’t).
Based on that, just what in the name Captain Cookie’s left bum-cheek did they think this one would fare any better? Did they honestly think people who had invested possibility a muck-ton of time and money into another still running title would just drop it for this one or do anything more than a cursory glance and trial run?
Heck if they had added the ability to ride armoured Velociraptors into battle or something left field at least it would have stood out. Wouldn’t guarantee success but at least may have given it a chance.
For maybe one week some of my more heavily Fifa and CoD playing friends tried this game, before going back to, you guessed it... so it is impressive that it got them for a short while... But yeah, something about "always destined to fail"... and "99% of live service games" comes to mind.
I wanted to like it. I played for a week or two at launch, but the hit registration and embrace of what I see as toxic design elements (mainly bunny hopping and the grind to unlock anything meaningful) ruined it for me. I don't have time for games that have such underlying faults. Especially when they don't make up for it with anything nearly as positive or unique to compensate.
"is barely hitting 20,000 concurrent players across all platforms"
Concord would be begging for these numbers despite being released little more than a week ago. It truly puts into perspective just how dramatically this game bombed.
Didn't this just launch? Like 3 months ago?
@IamJT Yeah, that's something I don't understand how executives seemingly overlook that fact.
E.g. "Let's make a game that is just like Fortnite" why would someone who already plays Fortnite play another game that is just like Fortnite? They'll just continue to play Fortnite. And someone who doesn't already play Fortnite won't play a game that is like Fortnite either
That’s a shame actually, I played it quite a bit the last couple of months and it plays super well. It just doesn’t give you much incentive to play, there’s virtually 0 way to earn currency without buying it and the rollout of content is too slow.
People who say Concord is bland clearly never played this.
I actually really like XDefiant. The only reason I've stopped is mostly my friends stopped playing and going in alone is basically the equivalent of walking into the lion's den. The last time I hopped on I got absolutely destroyed. 😅
Not surprising at all. Many similarities with Concord. This is not a problem of saturation. Nothing just stands out in both games. Not one single original approach on maps, gunplay, modes, etc...and not a single feature better than the years-long established competition. If xdefiant would have launch at 40$, i think it would give same playercounts than Concord...
(Insert manic laughter here)
Should add an option for "I haven't heard of this game"
Guaranteed I stay completely away from GaaS but I do hear of them from time to time. Could be why player counts are low. Maybe not a lot of people have heard of it.
@FinneasGH that presumption is not logical. More people have played this than Concord by a massive margin, especially considering this is f2p. So considering you have to pay for Concord to play it, the higher probability is in favour of someone saying Concord is more bland knowing what they are talking about, because there's a likelier chance of that player having played both.
Andnothingofvaluewaslost.gif
If 20k concurrent players is considered a fail to the point of shutting down the game, what about Concord and its barely 60 players.
I was waiting for a 1 life Search and destroy type mode. Also forgot about it.
Crazy how these companies still think that small maps, endless running and gunning with endless lifes is fun for anything else than goldfish.
Search and destroy and CSGO were so popular. I put hundreds of hours into the survivors mode in factions. Why this game (or insurgency Sandstorm for that matter) doesn't have a mode like that
@B0udoir
Concord is like failing before the timer runs out. You failed too hard. You still gotta wait for the timer
You need to add a poll option of “never even heard of it.”
Maybe I was living under a rock, but this game never got on my radar
It’s doesn’t look that good tbh
Felt like cod. Hard pass for me
This game was very good until you hit Level 25, after which all skill-based matchmaking is thrown out the window and you end up in incredibly sweaty try-hard lobbies where the entire opposing team are snipers. I quit at that point because it was so frustrating
Better than Concord.
@Waluigi451 It was in the top 10 on PS for a while, so yes maybe you do live under a waluigi shaped rock
A new GaaS in this day needs some kind of hook. Instead of whatever the heck Concord is, Sony could have tied it to an existing IP.
Example: Bring back Resistance as a fully-fleshed out single player game. Knock it out of the park. Put your best and brightest studio to work on it. Then release the multiplayer component as a free to play game with bonuses for progress in the campaign. Give it multiple modes like 4on4 or some PvE horde mode. Make an overarching goal like taking back parts of Europe. The primary development costs are recouped by sales of the single player title while the GaaS multiplayer element brings additional cash flow. If it doesn't support itself after a few months, pull the plug and call it a success since they released a strong single player game with a good campaign.
Well seems them ‘NO SBMM’ marketing gimmick didn’t work out.
If the piranhas eats all the whales just for fun, there is nobody to pay the bills.
"is barely hitting 20,000 concurrent players"
That actually sounds pretty good to me not sure why they expected more. It does put into perspective the almost less than 100 people playing Concord, in fact Suicide Squad is averaging more players 😅
@atoqir Its wild that that's ALL they had going for them. Not one unique mode. Not one unique mechanic. Just "like CoD used to be." Clearly that's not a good enough selling point.
Similar to how all Concord offers is "at least we're not F2P" as the only true selling point.
It's wild that these companies spend all this money to build these games and fail to realize they need a GAMEPLAY differentiator more than anything.
I think Exoborne looks pretty damn generic overall. But it basically has super powers AND wild game-changing weather. THAT is at least cool. THAT will earn it some real play time from me.
These other games just copy paste other ideas and forget to change it up and offer their own ideas. Then they wonder why they fail so hard.
@MFTWrecks same exact situation for me, a shame really. I wanted it to excel, but alas …
@SlipperyFish That’s true, the first 25 levels were super fun. After that… games stopped being enjoyable.
I never played it but the game feels like they reused some assets from Rainbow 6 / Ghost Recon, made it looks more colorful, add a bunch of MTX, then bam they got a new live service game ready to attract some poor gamers or whales who has too much money 😁
But hey, another news of live service game bites the dust became more and more normal these past two weeks with Foamstar, Concord, and Blue Protocol 🙏
Another one to the live service graveyard. 😆
The only way you peel enough people off of an existing title in this space is by innovating in some way, and I’m not sure the AAA’s know how to do that anymore, frankly. Releasing clones isn’t going to cut it.
Live service games are like your local pub. You occasionally go to different pubs and dabble in the new ones that open, a rarity these days, but you always go back to what and who you know.
The live service gambles are mostly losers. When devs get it right the rewards are immense though. Problem is they mostly aim for the same audience so it’s incredibly difficult to carve out a space for yourself.
The quicker investment bankers and the suits abandon the games industry the better. What will be built from the ashes will be a much healthier ecosystem.
@Enigk that’s a great analogy
@FinneasGH Well the characters in Xdefiant are at least not cringey as a whole. Some of the characters are realistic military or Police special operations skins. Apart from Naymar, all other Concord characters are unappealing.
@commentlife Ubisoft hasn't innovated in over decade. Everything they have done has been a copy and paste of something someone else did first or better (see: Immortals Fenyx Rising, Xdefiant). Or worse, they copy and paste their own ideas until they're watered down and the market is numb to their banality (see: Farcry, Avatar, AC).
It was boring. Nothing really made it stand out from the crowd. I was hoping it would be good but it was just so mediocre. Such a shame as it showed potential but just didn't deliver.
Never heard of it.
@nessisonett yeah the "welcome playlist" is a lot of fun. It's a shame they didn't have proper matchmaking after that otherwise I'd still be playing
@Frmknst multipler is just a segment of a game, that allows people to play together, whereas live service aims to keep players engaged for a long as possible with constant updates, new characters, battle passes, etc. All live service games are multiplayer but not all multiplayers are live service
But, but, it's the COD killer! It was the hope of so many COD haters.
I played it a few times but never went back to it. The game itself is okay, but there's too many other games I'm playing at the moment.
Make a ghost recon advanced war fighter remake or reboot
@Frmknst Because all MP games nowadays are live service. They don't just make one off MP games like they used to back in the PS3 days.
Ex-Defiant.
Customers just don’t want these games.
Love it when live service games fail. We need less of that crap, not more.
Can we please move past this live service era and go back to full priced games that had everything to offer within in the game itself as unlockables instead of paying for extra stuff
The live service market is already at saturation point, those who play them already have their chosen game and the rest of us have no interest in them. And unlike single player games, these are all competing for something we all have a limited amount of, time
@IntrepidWombat absolutely not. If they released a new resistance, it should have a single player campaign as you said, but a normal multiplayer, all unlocks through gameplay, no live service bs
Not releasing it on Steam was probably a bad decision.
@BigJoze Making it F2P immediately allows for a larger audience by virtue of being free. That compounds with the fact that Sony doesn't require PS+ to play F2P titles either. It was just an example though not saying they should do exactly that, just a vector they could take with some kind of game as a service.
Was fun to play while waiting for a new Cod, I'd wager around 95% of those 20k concurrent players will switch to B06 come October.
What's XDefiant?
It’s actually a better-than-good game. But good is not good enough to take me away from Fortnite, COD and Apex
Deserved. Just like The Finals dropping in numbers. Both this game and The Finals is full of premade turbo sweats that ruin the game and make casuals leave.
It's lasted longer than Concord then! 😂
Another one bites the dust... Hahaha brilliant.
I really wonder how long it'll take for these stupid ***** to realise live service is NOT the future. Aside from some brainless sheep gamers that can't think for themselves, nobody wants these, plays these or needs these.
Don't argue me on this - I KNOW i'm correct on this one 100%.
Shame I play it on regular basis. I like it, cause it's fast and has super-responsive controls. Didn't like The Finals (30 seconds respawns are too much for me) and didn't like Concord (not very precise controls) :/
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...