Suicide Squad: Kill The Justice League Sales Have Been “Disappointing”, According To Warner Bros

Warner Bros Discovery has revealed that sales of its action adventure game, Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League, have been "disappointing".

[RaidenBlack]

NSS

[-Foxtrot]

No one to blame but themselves

Are they now getting it or they still going to push GaaS

[senorfartcushion]

They're still pushing live services.

[XiNatsuDragnel]

That's on Wb and unfortunately you guys too

[isarai]

The main thing I hate about this garbage, is that they gamble the livelihood of these studios by forcing them to do this when they don't want to. Then when it underperforms they shut them down for something they didn't even want to do in the first place.

[zaanan]

Agree; however, to be fair you left out the part where the developers whore themselves out to the publishing company in the first place. When you sell yourself to the highest bidder, you can’t complain when you no longer can do what you want to do.

[Relientk77]

Good. I don't want live service crap.

[Chocoburger]

They're going to try and shove more down our throats. Spit, don't swallow!

[JEECE]

Okay; now can everyone who tries to equate position on a sales chart with permanent sales success take note of this information? Because Suicide Squad topped the UK sales charts the week it launched, and has been one of the top ten selling games in the US this year according to Circana (NPD). Yet it is admittedly a huge financial failure.

Because everytime I point to a big budget game that was obviously a financial disappointment, someone will inevitably try to disprove it by saying "it was #1 the week it launched and the twelfth best selling game of the year, so it must have sold well."

[SoloGamer1]

Duh

[Profchaos]

Apparently the only way to make a good live service game is to not make a good live service game.

I'm a fan of single player and retro games being the main games I play and almost never online unless I have a few friends that really want to play a certain game.

Live service to me is a dirty word it's dull and feels like someone trying to syphon my bank account.

However if a game has to be a live service make a fun game and make it playable online but don't make it the whole games identity games like suicide squad bf 2042 and marvels Avengers feel like the whole existence is to glue to to their game only and sell you so much cosmetic crap you want to puke.

Helldivers 2 is a live service game but it doesn't feel like I'm forced into anything the gameplay loop isn't painfully drawn out and bosses don't need a million bullets to down it feels like a normal game with co op elements.

[Lexreborn2]

It’s weird you say helldivers doesn’t feel like a live service when I absolutely feel it does. There is a loop of bullet sponge bosses and it’s mostly the same exact maps with the same enemy types. I honestly feel more like I jump into helldivers and piggy back off my friends.

But when I solo played it I felt like I couldn’t do anything, when I solo played Suicide Squad I never felt encumbered by needing to buy cosmetics but people swore that it was bad because it is GaaS while praising Helldivers a GaaS as well.

Playing both I felt they were very different experiences from solo and multiplayer perspective but don’t understand how you can say ALL GaaS games are evil but make the most successful game of the year with Helldivers 2 that is a GaaS.

Then people beg them to stop while supporting GaaS like HD2, Fortnite etc. that’s a VERY confusing message to these publishers.

Idk, this is also why I mostly just read and don’t comment as much because it don’t feel like anyone knows what the hell they actually want.

[northpaws]

Not to be mean, but if in Helldivers you feel like you are just piggy backing off your friends, then maybe learn and see what they are doing. There are also people who solo the highest difficulty as well, it is very likely you are doing something wrong, or the difficulty is just not for you.

You can complete any missions with just the starter weapons and stratagems, the new warbonds weapons are nothing special that you need to be able to do well.

[DazaMc]

The sooner live service games die, the better!

[Rikimaru-00]

Interesting story line but the game play is what not made me buy this game. I'm not sure alot of Dev understand that it's all about gameplay.

[chicken_in_the_corn]

The gameplay is great though.

[SimpleDad]

Well, the best thing WB can do right now... is to invest into another live service game.
All in on the live service.
Of course, the games should be named: We killed the Superman 2 (like too... you get it ... we killed him too.. ok ok...thank you).

[RNTody]

Don't forget that your shit game is disappointing too.

[senorfartcushion]

Because what they could be doing is yes is not what they signed up for. The same goes for Microsoft after acquiring so many studios.

They're looking at Fortnite and Roblox and saying "we want that money. Take their money." One analogy I can think of is boating.

They do not see games like Hogwarts Legacy as they thing they signed up for. They're not in it to make the boat, they want to have 8 huge boats made for them and they're investing in the journey the boats are making, regardless of how the boat is made or how the weather is. Some float, some don't. The issue is that they want all of their boats to float and to make the same journey as Fortnite and Roblox.

[Chocoburger]

It would be nice to see developers actually grow a backbone and tell their bosses that they don't want to make these live service grindy, filler games.

[northpaws]

The problem is not just live service, but "lazy" live service. People are so fed up with battle passes now, locking stuff behind paywall with a time constraint, giving gamers the false urgency that they either pay now or lose access to them forever. Then people pay because they don't want to miss out, not because it enhances their experience in any way.

[persona4chie]

Damn, all we did was give the fans a game they didn’t want, in a form they didn’t want…why aren’t they buying it? They loved our Batman Arkham games, what gives?

[Miacosa]

Anyone after seeing the first reveal of this title could have foreseen this outcome. Another red flag was that the leadership that started the studio all left before the games release. One possible way for this to have worked would have been to release a traditional single-player / co-op story game at around 8-12 hrs. for a price of $39-49.99 and then have kick-ass story pack add-ons like issues of a comic book. This falls in line with properties that are mainly story driven content. Trying to mix GAAS elements into story driven properties as never worked well as proven out by Crystal Dynamics's Marvel's Avengers game.

These titles never satisfy the people looking for a good super hero storyline and the multiplayer gamer exits quickly because these games cannot compete feature wise to more dedicated ongoing multiplayer games. As a result, it leaves everyone wanting just budget accordingly to the correct genre and the profits will come if the game is good.

[JL2930]

Even if this wasn't GaaS, it's still a shitty game. It wouldn't have mattered either way.