[qwertycrackers]

Sure but the comparable idea with Netflix is like one show. You watch that show and then it's done. It took you maybe 8 hours. This kind of game expects a player to log in week after week, dedicating hundreds and hundreds of hours over the course of years.

But players who want to do that are already invested in other games. They're not going to split out time to play this new one unless it's amazing. This thing was $40 and not well regarded. No one is really surprised at this result.

[makeitdouble]

Yes, it really comes down to motivating users to play your game, either through network effect or by just being that good.

I was just pointing that the amount of time isn't the real issue, it's the competition for that time. Of course, the tighter that time is the tougher the competition will be, and the better a singular live service game needs to be.

[gigaflop]

Yep. I love gaming, and game nights with a squad, but I can't ass myself to follow every single option.

Also, back when I played Valorant, a regular match could be anywhere from 20 to 40 minutes long. Add up queue times, waiting for people to group up (because there's usually one more person who's almost online, etc), and waiting for the potato-pc users to load in, it could easily turn into 3 hours for 2 to 3 matches.

These days, I'd rather watch a movie, and be in a different chair than the one I'd spent my working day in.