Square Enix Officially Shut Down Babylon's Fall Months After Failed Live Service's Disastrous Launch

[killamch89]

So...before anyone asks when did Babylon's Fall come out, it was released on February 28 of this year. I didn't even remember this game existed until I learnt that they had shut it down recently. I think it was in some Ubisoft showcase last year? (The name vaguely rings a bell) But what we have here is ANOTHER live service game by Square Enix that has failed miserably. It failed so badly that physical copies are being destroyed or given away by Gamestop.

Square Enix seems to have learned nothing from Marvel's Avengers and keep putting out this third-rate trash. For anyone that was looking forward to this game, how did you feel about it shutting down just seven months after release?

[Kane99]

Sad to see a game fail like this. That's why I always suggest games add a single player campaign, otherwise all these live service games on disc are going to become obsolete pretty fast. Reminds me of the few online only games that came out in the past, that have since become coasters now that they are rendered useless. That's the problem with games that only have online modes, because once there's no one left to play, that game is pretty much done for. Especially if they decide to close the servers. 

[Empire]

so, let me get this straight. They decided to make a live service game with no offline playable options and charged $60 and are shutting down servers within a year of release…That’s so BS and the gaming industry is just cool with it. Even Evolve is still playable offline and that game died years ago.

[Shagger]

This is exactly why I don't buy these kind of games. I'm not buying a game to play on a publishers schedule.

[killamch89]

12 hours ago, Empire said:

so, let me get this straight. They decided to make a live service game with no offline playable options and charged $60 and are shutting down servers within a year of release…That’s so BS and the gaming industry is just cool with it. Even Evolve is still playable offline and that game died years ago.

This seems to be the common industry trend. We have had Anthem, that Ubisoft Live Service game that none of us remember shut down within a year of release among others. I don't even pay attention to live service games nowadays because it's lazy design by gaming companies.

[Empire]

On 9/29/2022 at 12:59 AM, killamch89 said:

This seems to be the common industry trend. We have had Anthem, that Ubisoft Live Service game that none of us remember shut down within a year of release among others. I don't even pay attention to live service games nowadays because it's lazy design by gaming companies.

Making money and ripping people off and then do not expect to refund them or give them anything else WOW 

[Demon_skeith]

I think gamestop is giving away what physical copies of the game if anyone wants to try it for the laughs.

[Ajibusu]

Babylon Fall was just a game that the developers did almost nothing in making a top game. Square Enix was just banking on the fact that they were popular when they made the game not knowing that gamers now know better in terms of gameplay and quality. 

[Justin11]

On 10/3/2022 at 4:53 AM, Ajibusu said:

Babylon Fall was just a game that the developers did almost nothing in making a top game. Square Enix was just banking on the fact that they were popular when they made the game not knowing that gamers now know better in terms of gameplay and quality. 

They didn't put too many factors into consideration when going into development of this game and it came out to be a big flop after they first launch which is why they shut it down. 

[Kane99]

On 9/28/2022 at 6:12 PM, Shagger said:

This is exactly why I don't buy these kind of games. I'm not buying a game to play on a publishers schedule.

Yeah live service games are a huge risk for devs and publishers. I wish they didn't do them as often these days, but it seems these studios have to find ways of expanding their profits. 

The only game to do it well is probably Fortnite. But when that game inevitably shuts down, that means all the skins and other stuff you bought goes away. That's a lot of money wasted. 

[Justin11]

On 11/2/2022 at 11:52 PM, Kane99 said:

Yeah live service games are a huge risk for devs and publishers. I wish they didn't do them as often these days, but it seems these studios have to find ways of expanding their profits. 

The only game to do it well is probably Fortnite. But when that game inevitably shuts down, that means all the skins and other stuff you bought goes away. That's a lot of money wasted. 

That's a demerit with live service games,m though I play games like fortnite and having to wait for play on the devs schedule can be really distracting.

[Kane99]

4 hours ago, Justin11 said:

That's a demerit with live service games,m though I play games like fortnite and having to wait for play on the devs schedule can be really distracting.

That's the thing, Fortnite is the one live service game I see that kinda does it right. For the most part, they're pretty good about releasing updates, fixes, and changing the game up. It's to my knowledge, the best live service game out there for what it offers. Because technically you can play Fortnite all the way through without getting the battle pass. Of course you don't open emotes, character skins and all that, but the option is there if you want it. And to be fair, when they do update, it isn't that big of a deal, at least to me. It makes sense to take the game offline for a bit to put out a new season, especially how much they change with the map, the controls, weapons and all that. It's a lot of work. 

But it's not easy to replicate what Epic Games does with Fortnite. Not many games can achieve it all the while appeasing the fans. COD on the other hand has been trying to do it for years, and I feel they always fail. Main reason is because you have to pay $60 (or $70 now) for the main game, and now you have to pay extra for gun skins, character skins etc. I believe it has its own battle pass, but should we be paying $60/$70, plus the battle pass fee? 

If COD reverted to 100% free to play for their standard multiplayer, I think it'd draw a lot of people in, and then a battle pass would kinda be reasonable since the game is free. But, you also have warzone, which has been CODs attempt at making a free to play experience. I'm sure that has a battle pass of its own, but I can't comment how well received that side of COD is. 

[Demon_skeith]

On 11/11/2022 at 11:15 AM, Kane99 said:

That's the thing, Fortnite is the one live service game I see that kinda does it right. For the most part, they're pretty good about releasing updates, fixes, and changing the game up. It's to my knowledge, the best live service game out there for what it offers. Because technically you can play Fortnite all the way through without getting the battle pass. Of course you don't open emotes, character skins and all that, but the option is there if you want it. And to be fair, when they do update, it isn't that big of a deal, at least to me. It makes sense to take the game offline for a bit to put out a new season, especially how much they change with the map, the controls, weapons and all that. It's a lot of work. 

But it's not easy to replicate what Epic Games does with Fortnite. Not many games can achieve it all the while appeasing the fans. COD on the other hand has been trying to do it for years, and I feel they always fail. Main reason is because you have to pay $60 (or $70 now) for the main game, and now you have to pay extra for gun skins, character skins etc. I believe it has its own battle pass, but should we be paying $60/$70, plus the battle pass fee? 

If COD reverted to 100% free to play for their standard multiplayer, I think it'd draw a lot of people in, and then a battle pass would kinda be reasonable since the game is free. But, you also have warzone, which has been CODs attempt at making a free to play experience. I'm sure that has a battle pass of its own, but I can't comment how well received that side of COD is. 

I certainly get on CoD more if the online gameplay was free and easy to get on, maybe throw some money on the battle pass. But the whole game itself is kind of large to get these days.

[killamch89]

On 11/13/2022 at 3:22 AM, Demon_skeith said:

I certainly get on CoD more if the online gameplay was free and easy to get on, maybe throw some money on the battle pass. But the whole game itself is kind of large to get these days.

To be honest, you have to do far more grinding on COD Warzone than Fortnite just to be able to get a free battle pass although I don't really like Fortnite that much.

[Justin11]

On 11/11/2022 at 6:15 PM, Kane99 said:

That's the thing, Fortnite is the one live service game I see that kinda does it right. For the most part, they're pretty good about releasing updates, fixes, and changing the game up. It's to my knowledge, the best live service game out there for what it offers. Because technically you can play Fortnite all the way through without getting the battle pass. Of course you don't open emotes, character skins and all that, but the option is there if you want it. And to be fair, when they do update, it isn't that big of a deal, at least to me. It makes sense to take the game offline for a bit to put out a new season, especially how much they change with the map, the controls, weapons and all that. It's a lot of work. 

But it's not easy to replicate what Epic Games does with Fortnite. Not many games can achieve it all the while appeasing the fans. COD on the other hand has been trying to do it for years, and I feel they always fail. Main reason is because you have to pay $60 (or $70 now) for the main game, and now you have to pay extra for gun skins, character skins etc. I believe it has its own battle pass, but should we be paying $60/$70, plus the battle pass fee? 

If COD reverted to 100% free to play for their standard multiplayer, I think it'd draw a lot of people in, and then a battle pass would kinda be reasonable since the game is free. But, you also have warzone, which has been CODs attempt at making a free to play experience. I'm sure that has a battle pass of its own, but I can't comment how well received that side of COD is. 

Having a periodic system update or break From service to redesign a particular video game is not in any way bad but you still need to make it a lot less tiring to wait for.

Fortnite microtransactions are not good but since they've been able to capture fan love nobody now care about how much they are willing to spend.

COD is a paid game but they have a form of microtransactions isn't good but people still play them anyways.