[Battleborn's] Not Dead, But It Isn't Successful

It's been nearly a month since Battleborn released on PC and its playerbase has waned enough for various media outlets to begin posting eulogies. On day 1 of its release slightly more than 12,000 players engaged in stylized FPS MOBA combat, but Battleborn now averages 2,000 players over a 24 hour period—based on SteamCharts' estimate. The numbers are closer to the average drop off for most games than a hyperbolic death spiral ("Click me please!").

Most games retain only about 20% of their initial playerbase after 30 days according to SuperData Research; MMO hopping is incredibly common regardless of the title. But Battleborn is a high-production game that failed to draw in large numbers on PC even at it's launch, which may be why so many commentators have claimed the guillotine has already sliced off Battleborn's head.

Battleborn may have dropped more than the average MMO but it's not dramatic enough to buy a coffin. Still, it failed to captured the legacy of its older brother Borderlands, and Borderlands 2 sits at a healthy average of 6,700 players as of this writing.

[singlepic id=50725 w=600 h=338 float=none]

What sealed the game's fate?

It's easy to argue that Overwatch cast a Goliath shadow over Battleborn. While the timely release of Blizzard's personable shooter plays a role it assumes that the games have a 1:1 target audience. But their gameplay is entirety different and only meet on the Venn diagram under "character-based cooperative gameplay." Overwatch is an objective based team shooter; Battleborn's multiplayer is a MOBA in first-person. The former drawing a better comparison to Team Fortress 2 while the latter ought to be compared to League of Legends or Dota 2.

Nor is Battleborn a victim of generic gameplay. While the campaign was generic and king of the hill isn't exactly innovation some risks were taken, slightly altering the traditional MOBA formula for a multiplayer experience that is fresh but doesn't deviate so much that it became foreign. But it was confusing.

Watch the trailer for Battleborn and it's difficult to determine exactly what the game is. "Shooters gotta shoot?" So, Battleborn is a team deathmatch or some type of character based campaign shooter? It's an adolescent identity crisis, latching on to too many paradigms to accurately say "this is who I am now."

[singlepic id=33086 w=600 h=338 float=none]

Gearbox gambled on something new but it didn't cement its image through advertising: a MOBA masquerading as a shooter? A campaign, three multiplayer modes, and a mesmerizing cartoon opening make Battleborn a game that is trying to be everything at once and that's difficult to translate to an audience.

Players who bought in because it looked cool at a distance dropped off after a few matches because Battleborn didn't meet their expectations. Not only because Battleborn couldn't decide exactly what to be but because it employed a quickly fading progression model.

Gearbox believes that endless achievements, perks, unlockable characters, and long matches are the key to longevity. The philosophy is flawed. Cramming content into a game doesn't work in a world starved for time and equality. Quick matches and the sense of an even playing field are paramount to attracting the largest possible audience. Not grinding.

Players start with a subset of characters and have to unlock more by completing campaign missions that potentially fail because your teammates are Sylvester Stallone practicing for the inevitable First Blood reboot. Campaign missions take time, upwards of 30 minutes. Or players could  keep playing multiplayer matches to unlock characters from secondary achievements, but matches also could take upwards of 30 minutes. Battleborn demands time. And time is something many players do not have.

[singlepic id=50756 w=600 h=338 float=none]

"Battleborn’s game design is one where players devout time like its a day-job to earn mico-rewards and experience the game completely."

Other titles have cut back on gameplay elements for quick pick-up-and-play matches. That's in part why games like Overwatch are successful. It's stripped of complex elements so that players understand objectives and controls in a match or two. While not necessarily better, simplicity grabs the widest possible audience.

If Battleborn sat around 500 players one month after release I might say it was near death. For now there's an audience who appreciates the mashup of a first-person camera and MOBA rulesets. And I imagine it will balance out to the hardcore so long as matchmaking times and the disparity between player ranks does not the hinder the perception of fairness among players.

I do believe games like Battleborn, ones layered with complex depth, are a dying breed that will only entertain a niche playerbase going forward. But Battleborn is not a dying game. It's just late to the party.

Sources:

SuperData Research : "Understanding free-to-play MMO retention"