Marvel Rivals Passes 40 Million Players as NetEase Reports $2.9 Billion in Net Revenue

The higher the profits the higher the layoffs 🥳🥳!! Common Live Service W 🔥🔥!!

Haven’t played it, probably won’t. Not sure why. Hero shooters have never appealed to me.

My family was discussing the layoffs at dinner and my college kid said they heard it was a contract ending thing, which it could have been if it was a back end setup thing. Maybe I’ll go look it up.

Edit: ok reading the statement Netease put out sounds like my kid was wrong and they just fired them.

10 million of them are alt/smurf accounts. lol

I gave it a go as it was free but it's not for me, I just wasn't having any fun with it.

With numbers that high in a sane world the developers that were fired should have received small bonuses instead of being thrown out like they released unplayable crap.

@Juanalf I mean it was 6 US based support staff. Suck's they were laid off but from the sound of things they played their part and now NetEase wants to keep it all focused in China what isn't shocking giving the state of the US right now.

Yea I thought it was cause of tensions between both countries that they were let go. You don't want to mess with the CCP if you're over there. Any excuse and you're cooked.

@Rabid_Gamer Yeah, and we know they tried and probably still are yeah? We'll se what happens ...

@Rabid_Gamer Yeah, look at those numbers. And ignore Multiversus, Concord, Foamstars,etc, etc. Just LOOK AT RIVAL'S NUMBERS!!!

@RoomWithaMoose how ironic considering how often a single games' failure is more than enough "proof" for people who hate GaaS that no one wants them.

catching up to overwatch which was 100 million pretty quick

@Rabid_Gamer I feel the exact same way. Not for me, but the huge success of several of them is undeliverable

with such a strong IP I think it is a bit unfair to compare it to other live service games. This magnitude of IP blockbuster live service game can not happen more often, if ever again?

@oc1d marvel avengers failed.

@RoomWithaMoose what about helldivers,first descendant,palworld,etc?

Also it’s funny how when a single player game doesn’t sell well it’s brushed under the rug and nobody sales they should stop making them

@Rabid_Gamer @naruball It's not a single game's failure, though — is it. The majority fail, and Sony's attempts to break into the market has so far lead to cancellations, closures, millions wasted, and Helldivers II (which I always assert was successful because it was a good multiplayer game, not because it was live-service).

I don't mind live-service games existing; they clearly have a place in the industry. But any developer or player thinking they're an easy path to success — and especially using one with the backing of a huge IP as proof of their viability — is asinine.

The original comment is logically equivalent to jumping on a COD sales article and saying, "See, this is why it was a solid business decision for Sony to greenlight 12 military shooters and cancel 6 of them" completely sincerely and with a straight face. The creative bankruptcy, failure of management, and detrimental and blind following of trends is not justified because COD make money — brrrrrr! Likewise, Rivals making money isn't an adequate defense for Sony's live-service blunders.

I don't even know why you two would be trying so hard to defend it if you're not personally into that direction. That means, of the three of us, not a one is into Sony's live-service push. Which, while anecdotal and mostly meaningless, is humorously ironic given the circumstance.

@Shad361 Marvel Avengers did fail. Having a big IP doesn't guarantee success, but it certainly helps. Imagine if that game wasn't a Marvel game. Would anyone still be bringing it up?

Mostly read my other comment to address your second comment. Though touching on some specific things: Are we considering Palworld a live-service? I didn't think it had microtransactions, so it doesn't much fit that mold. I haven't checked The First Descendents numbers, though it does seem to me like a game that'll be forgotten within 2 years — I could be wrong, though. And Helldivers II is just a good game with good sales. I argue a successful live-service makes most of its money through microtransactions, and I'm not convinced HDII does that.

Regardless, there are certainly successful live-services. I would have to be delusional to not see that. And I never said that live-services shouldn't exist. But it's not guaranteed success. And, in most cases, it's not magnitudes more profitable than a successful admission-price model game. Sony's ostensible pivot away from live-service should be all the proof y'all need.

Also, people frequently say AA single player games shouldn't exist due to its market's perceived failure. Not going to write a whole paragraph directly addressing your last claim, just going to establish its an incorrect assumption.

@RoomWithaMoose People have been waiting for a good overwatch alternative for years. Same for all these other games big live service games like Destiny Fortnite etc. Concord was mid and not up to quality which is why it failed. Just remembered Zenless which was also successful last year.

Also I don’t buy Sony quitting live service, when the most successful game they’ve released this entire generation was a live service game. They look on the charts and see that is what everyone is playing. They might scale back and not over invest but I think they’ll definitely keep making some.

People on this very site say Sony should make more AA regularly…They want Sony to make the games THEY like specifically and not what’s actually successful.

which is fine, but people cherry pick things to justify their opinion and sweep other things under the rug.

@themightyant I only found out the full details because of SkillUp. The amount of misinformation around it has been incredible.

@Shad361 That Concord failed where Rivals succeeded is indicative of many trends and specific circumstances. Even your comment on the audience looking for OW alternatives paints a picture of circumstances that allowed Rivals to become popular. Which is to say, the market is more complex than 'live-service good'/'live-service bad.'

While I didn't start this discussion terribly explicit about my intent, to clear it up now: I saw a comment that referenced Rivals' success as validation for Sony's LS initiatives. I pointed out failures in the market, and implied Rivals' success means little in light of the many other failures. I did not say LSes are inherently failures nor that I personally hold abject distain for the model (mostly indifferent, but definitely prefer the industry to make different things). I think if people understood that I'm mostly just saying live-service doesn't guarantee success, most would agree. They kinda have to, because that's the objective truth.

Sony's definitely not quitting live-service. But they are pivoting away — like I said. That's the only way to interpret these cancellations and closures. And that pivot doesn't mean nothing.

People on this site also say Sony is justified in abandoning AA — regardless of if that's what they personally desire. Don't you think that's a little weirder? Like, there's people here who actively dislike live-service and crave lower-budgeted, high-imagination titles, yet will defend Sony's direction to the contrary adamantly due to...some sense of brand loyalty, I guess...?

I don't want 12 live-services. I do want more games like Astro Bot and still bemoan Japan Studio's closure. I can logically tell you why making 12 live-services was a stupid business move, and how many other publishers have found success in releasing original and/or lower budgeted titles. It's not cherry-picking to validate my own biases. It's considering what I personally want, looking at the industry as a whole, and detailing the validity of personal gaming desires provided market trends. Personally, I REALLY want Jak 4. But, I understand the challenge in both making it (given contemporary Naughty Dog's specializations) and marketing, so I never act like Jak 4 is the solution to all of Sony's problems. On the contrary, there are successful single-player games every year, a lot of which don't have excessively inflated budgets. So I don't think it's ridiculous to assert Sony should focus more on that rather than mimicking success stories in a market with shrinking opportunities.

@Shad361 I don't think having a big ip is a guarantee for success, but it helps with user acquisition. I don't think there are endless opportunities like this.

How much of that does back to Disney though .
Based off licenced Spider-Man films and the insomniac games it's gonna be 25 percent of that 2.9 billion

sobering amount for zero of the work

3 billion and they couldn't keep that support team on board lmao