Multiversus (2022)

[Julius]

Been very heavily rumoured the last few months since the launch of Nickelodeon All-Star Brawl, so no surprises here. 

Quote

MultiVersus is a brand-new, free-to-play platform fighter that lets you team up with or against your friends using some of the world’s most iconic characters including Batman, Shaggy, Superman, Bugs Bunny & more.

Use unique co-op abilities, find your favorite fighter combos, and save the Multiverse!

MultiVersus is scheduled for worldwide release in 2022 on PlayStation®5 (PS5™) and PlayStation®4 consoles, Xbox Series X|S, Xbox One consoles and PC with full cross-play support, dedicated server-based rollback netcode and content-filled seasons. 

Pre-registration for upcoming playtests is available now at MultiVersus.com

Bizarre this is passing over the Switch, I wonder if they have plans for it down the road? But crossplay and rollback netcode can only bode well. Could be fun! 

Edited November 18, 2021 by Julius

[Dufniall]

Haha yeah already saw the leaked cast earlier, but nice to see it confirmed. What a stupid cast, can't decide if I love it or hate it. Also bizarre to see that they went with the Shaggy the all-powerful meme at 1:56.

They emphasize the voice cast but to me they all sound off, but maybe that's because most voices are based of the (more recent) cartoon series? The game looks very slow as well, and a bit cheap and clumsy, not as polished as for example the Nickelodeon one.

All in all can't see myself putting any time in this but who knows.

Edit: I do like how they put more focus on teamwork, something that is for example completely missing in the Smash Bros. movesets.

Edited November 18, 2021 by Vileplume2000

[Ashley]

If nothing else the name is fantastic

[Dcubed]

This has to be the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen… I’m in!  

… at least I would be if it wasn’t free to play; way to kill what should be something awesome  

[Julius]

Cinematic trailer:

Okay, can't speak to the game itself, but that seems like a great and accurate depiction of their characters. It's not quite got that Sakurai charm to it the Smash trailers do, but clearly what they've gone for, and I think they did a half decent job! Especially that Iron Giant team-up with Superman, that was perfect 

Edited May 16, 2022 by Julius

[Dcubed]

That's a great trailer; really highlights the utter absurdity of this crossover!

Just a shame that this game is F2P... I'd actually be really interested in playing Multiversus, but alas...

[Ashley]

I watched this the other day and gives some hands-on info for anyone curious:

Apparently more aerial-based that Smash and takes some getting used to but when you do it apparently works.

I am intrigued by the game. It's look so stupid that it could work. Just a shame I don't have a console to play it on!

[RedShell]

Started playing this today. It actually seems pretty good for a Smash Bros. clone, but it's also quite different in how it plays (aerial movement is super floaty) and I can't quite get my head around not tapping the stick for "Smash" attacks.

The inclusion of retro cartoon characters is great though. Looking forward to seeing who else gets added.

[RedShell]

 

[Julius]

The online component of the Multiverse dies after its next update, following Season 5 which will run from Feb 2nd to May 30th, following which it will only be delisted and only able to be played offline: 

There's got to be a story here about what WB's hopes and expectations for the game were back when it was conceptualised. Can't wait for the NoClip doc in like 5 years 

Edited yesterday at 02:26 PM by Julius

[Glen-i]

26 minutes ago, Julius said:

There's got to be a story here about what WB's hopes and expectations for the game were back when it was conceptualised.

Someone came along with an idea for a Smash clone. Warner Brothers decided that it needed to make Fortnite-level money.

It didn't make Fortnite-level money.

It's a pity. Nick All-Stars learned from it's mistakes and improved on it's base. The second game is quite neat. (Shame the Switch version runs at 30 FPS)

Smash Bros has a ridiculous amount of care put into it, (and budget). The moment Multiversus was revealed and it was F2P, it was apparent to many that it was a blatant cash-grab.

[Helmsly]

Supposedly, someone that worked on this games monetisation side has given a breakdown on some of the issues happening behind the scenes. This post is a summary of his now deleted messages: 

https://www.reddit.com/r/GamingLeaksAndRumours/s/V7ZUrCGrVa

 

[Jonnas]

3 hours ago, Helmsly said:

Supposedly, someone that worked on this games monetisation side has given a breakdown on some of the issues happening behind the scenes. This post is a summary of his now deleted messages: 

https://www.reddit.com/r/GamingLeaksAndRumours/s/V7ZUrCGrVa

 

Fascinating stuff. Some highlights for me:

Quote

Because free players are content for the paying players. Now this might seem a dark comment, but it's true. You can't sustain a F2P game with only the players. You NEED the free players and need them to have some sense of fun, so the paying players feel the value of their spend. So there's selfish value in keeping free players involved.

Not the first time I've heard of this, and I find it very true. Any game or app that's free... if you're not paying for it, you're part of the content. I've heard this notion be best applied for dating apps: if you aren't paying for it, you're part of the window shopping for paying customers. If you're not paying, you're swiping right all the time. If you're paying, then you have access to the feature that says "Check only the people who already swiped right for you". In other words, the only reason one person paid, was because there were several that didn't.

Quote

in MVS case a surprising amount of licensing fees

I am always amused when people get surprised that IPs are expensive. Like, this game includes some of best known characters in the world (Superman, Batman, Bugs Bunny, Tom&Jerry, Scooby-Doo, etc.), how did they not think getting the official right to those things was expensive?!

Quote

There is a QA team, but what there isn't is a QA Plan. They just all play the game (largely with Tony) and do feedback about balance, when they're not telling the other designers what to do. This is a problem because they're friends with Tony (or at least he thinks so).

This makes QA incredibly inconsistent and biased, because they just don't bother to test things sometimes, or just don't notice things... And they're immune to criticism (trust me, don't slip up and tell Tony that QA didn't test something, he gets mad).

Chaos and lack of plans is an overall problem at the company, but QA is especially bad because there's no real QA management (note: The positions are technically full) and they mostly just randomly play the game.

Fascinating stuff. I've seen for myself how messy and lawless QA can get (I'm currently working on such a project myself right now), and this definitely breaks down how leadership and company culture pretty much defines how it all works. No diligence, no reports, no parameters... The absence of these things comes down to their relationship with the Project Lead (why write reports and checklists when someone's word undoes them?), because the final say is always with someone, and if that someone is not scrutinized in turn, then everything falls apart.

In this case, Tony is not the someone, but he actively prevents that person's decisions from being questioned and scrutinized.

Quote

Tony had the great (if obvious) idea and the connections to start a company to pitch it.

He's also terrible at management and all elements of design except for gameplay, while holding a Musk-esque sense of his own genius.

And a general confirmation that inflated and overbearing egos can happen at any point of the hierarchy. If Tony can sufficiently convince WB that the project depends on him, then WB won't touch his decisions.

If WB isn't buying his bullshit, then they have to convince Tony's studio to ignore his decisions and follow WB's directives instead... which is not easy, because the studio works with Tony every day, whereas WB representatives aren't always there (and also don't have the same understanding of the inner workings of the project as the studio's CEO, or the Project Lead).

Corporate hierarchy is way more chaotic, ego-focused, and freeform than it looks. It's fascinating to take this look at the inner workings of the development of a major videogame like this.

Edited 2 hours ago by Jonnas

[Cube]

19 minutes ago, Jonnas said:

 

I am always amused when people get surprised that IPs are expensive. Like, this game includes some of best known characters in the world (Superman, Batman, Bugs Bunny, Tom&Jerry, Scooby-Doo, etc.), how did they not think getting the official right to those things was expensive?!

 

It's slightly confusing when Warner Bros, who published and funded the game, are the ones that own it all. I guess some may have royalties to the original creators and characters they don't own the license for (like their reason for not having Goku).

 

But surely there's enough characters owned entirely by Warner Bros to focus on first?

[Jonnas]

1 hour ago, Cube said:

It's slightly confusing when Warner Bros, who published and funded the game, are the ones that own it all. I guess some may have royalties to the original creators and characters they don't own the license for (like their reason for not having Goku).

 

But surely there's enough characters owned entirely by Warner Bros to focus on first?

I'm not sure how many of these characters are entirely owned by WB. Folk like the Looney Toons, sure, but the DC characters, ASOIAF, etc. Can't be an unilateral decision. Even if they technically own some of these properties, I'm sure there's still a lot of agreements, clauses, etc. that need to be navigated, and I'm sure they cost money and/or have an associated budget as well. When IPs come from acquisitions, rather than be developed in-house, you get hidden costs like these.

So, you could say that Superman isn't free, but he still comes with a big discount (much bigger than any other company would have). Meanwhile, the fact that they didn't have a single Harry Potter character tells me that that franchise was still prohibitively expensive for them (despite the fact that they own part of it).

My comment was definitely more geared at the guy citing Goku as "surprisingly expensive" (like, duh). When the baseline is "characters who are worldwide known and popular, and have been so for the past century", you'd think he'd be ready for incredibly high prices to begin with. Then again, it's entirely possible that, since he was dealing with those "discounts" from other properties, he was blindsided when he actually had to deal with fully 3rd party licensing fees.

As for going through the WB catalogue first... sure, that would be sensible. But when your starting roster already has some heavy hitters from the world of pop media, you kinda want to keep'em coming, so I understand them aiming high. It's not a good idea, but I can see them wanting to be the guys who make "Goku vs. Superman" official.